Tongues, initial evidence of one having the Holy Spirit

[Dave Slayer]

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
(1Co.13:1)

Paul was not saying that he spoke in tongues of angels. He is speaking in hyerbolics here as well as the following verses. Basically what Paul is saying here is that "even if I could do this, it would be useless without charity". "Though I" is saying "Even if".

Some versions actually say "even if".

1Cr 13:1 (NLT)
If I could speak in any language in heaven or on earth[fn1] but didn't love others, I would only be making meaningless noise like a loud gong or a clanging cymbal.
1Cr 13:2 (NLT)
If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I knew all the mysteries of the future and knew everything about everything, but didn't love others, what good would I be? And if I had the gift of faith so that I could speak to a mountain and make it move, without love I would be no good to anybody.
1Cr 13:3 (NLT)
If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it;[fn2] but if I didn't love others, I would be of no value whatsoever.

Let's look at 1 Cr 13:2. Did Paul know all the mysteries and have all knowledge? Of course not. Did Paul have faith to make a mountain move? No.

Let's look at 1 Cr 13:3. Did Paul give everything he had to the poor and sacrifice his body? No. Paul was later beheaded, but he didn't sacrifice his body.

So as you can clearly see, Paul was speaking with hyperboyles. He was exxagerating to make a point that even if he could do all these amazing things, what good are they without love? Paul says nothing about a heavenly language and he never said he could actually speak in tongues of angels. He said "even if" I could. Futhermore, Paul was not teaching a heavenly language or a private prayer language. It is a mistake to take one verse out of the Bible and build an entire doctrine out of it.

I am one who does not believe in the prayer language tongues. I have read almost every argument possible on the matter and I arrive at conclusions that seem to be different than what I have read hear concerning the subject. Tongues in Acts were foreign languages and they were also foreign languages in Corinthians. The confusion is brought about by "unknown tongue". In the King James version, the word "unknown" was not in the original manuscripts which means it was added by the translators. The word "unknown" appears in italics in the Bible. It isn't supposed to actually be there. The translators were more than likely trying to say that if anyone speaks in a tongue that is "unknown" to the hearers, it does not edify. However, it has confused many people.

The Bible nowhere goes from foreign tongues in Acts to prayer language tongues in Corinthians. Certain scriptures have been taken out of context to teach this. But if someone has had an experience with tongues, no amount of Biblical evidence to the contrary will change their mind. I do not deny people have experiences but I personally do not find them to be Biblical. I believe that it has more to do with hypnosis than anything. In other words, it can be picked up simply by watching other people do it. Kind of like laughing and yawning, it's contagious. I believe that is part of the reason why people speak in tongues.

I have been saved for 13 years and I never spoke in tongues. I have even attended Pentecostal Churches and still have not spoken in tongues. That doesn't mean I am not saved.

1Cr 14:2 (KJV)
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.

Notice that the word "unknown" is in brackets. The word is not in the original manuscripts which means it is not supposed to be there. He is left speaking to God since no else can understand him.

The reason why it is a "mystery" is because no one else can understand what is being spoken. This is why Paul wanted tongues to be interpreted or translated.

1Cr 14:9 (KJV)
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

It says to utter words "easy to be understood". What sounds like gibberish is not easy to understand. It is because it is not a language at all.

1Cr 14:13 (KJV)
Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret.

It says if someone speaks in a tongue that is "unknown" to the hearers, pray that he can also provide an interpretation so that everyone can be edified.

1Cr 14:14 (KJV)
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful

What good does speaking in tongues do if your understanding is unfruitful? The very next verse explains to pray and sing with understanding:

1Cr 14:15 (KJV)
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.

It says to pray and sing with understanding. When people sing, they don't sing in words you cannot understand. They sing in words that can be understood. The same goes for speaking or praying in tongues.

What many people may not know is that Corinth was like a trading post. Many foreigners often passed through it's harbors. This created a language barrier. People didn't attend the Corinthian Church to speak in a heavenly or private prayer language. They all spoke in differnet tongues because they were foreigners which is exactly why Paul said that tongues need to be interpreted or not spoke in at all.

Paul didn't write to the Corinthians to encourage private prayer languages. He was actually rebuking people who were edifying themselves. When people would edify themselves, they were "showing off". Paul's entire letter to the Corinthians was to encourage edification of the entire Church and not yourself.

 

[FightingAtheism]

Dave Slayer

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become [as] sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
(1Co.13:1)

Paul was not saying that he spoke in tongues of angels. He is speaking in hyerbolics here as well as the following verses. Basically what Paul is saying here is that "even if I could do this, it would be useless without charity". "Though I" is saying "Even if".

Some versions actually say "even if".

Paul did spoke with tongues.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
(1Co.14:18)

And speaking with tongues is speaking in the Holy Spirit, so I guess it is a heavenly language.

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.
(1Co.14:2)

1Cr 14:2 (KJV)

Notice that the word "unknown" is in brackets. The word is not in the original manuscripts which means it is not supposed to be there. He is left speaking to God since no else can understand him.

Doesn't matter, the words in context show that it is actually "unknown".

The reason why it is a "mystery" is because no one else can understand what is being spoken. This is why Paul wanted tongues to be interpreted or translated.

Why would someone need to understand tongues when you are not speaketh unto men, but unto God (Cor 14:2)?

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.
(1Co.14:14,15)

Why would you need an interpreter if tongues is an earthly language? If by your understanding tongues is a gift that is used for missionaries to a foreign country, then the interpretation of tongues doesn't fit in the picture...

1Cr 14:9 (KJV)
So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

It says to utter words "easy to be understood". What sounds like gibberish is not easy to understand. It is because it is not a language at all.

It's a language no man understands:

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.
(1Co.14:2)

You're just contradiciting yourself. First you were saying that Paul is talking about a foreign language, now you're saying that Paul does talk about a language no men understands (by your word: "gibberish).

1Cr 14:14 (KJV)
For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful

What good does speaking in tongues do if your understanding is unfruitful? The very next verse explains to pray and sing with understanding:

It edifies the spirit in you:

4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
(1Co.14:4)

Paul didn't write to the Corinthians to encourage private prayer languages. He was actually rebuking people who were edifying themselves. When people would edify themselves, they were "showing off". Paul's entire letter to the Corinthians was to encourage edification of the entire Church and not yourself.

Note this: Praying in an unkown tongues is not "showing off", you're not speaking unto men, but unto God. (1 Cor 14:2)

4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
(1Co.14:4)

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.
(1Co.14:14,15)

What would be so negative about praying with the spirit?

Jude 20-21 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. NIV

Eph 6:18 8 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. NIV

Let me just give you a interpretation of First Corinthians chapter 14, so this all could clear out:

The Corinthians were probably abusing the use of speaking with tongues. They were speaking unto men when there was no interpreter. So in this case, Paul told them that

rather that ye prophesied: for greater [is] he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.(1Co.14:5)But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. (1Co.14:28)

Please note that in this chapter Paul was not against praying with tongues or speaking unto God(v2), he was against the abuse of tongues -start speaking with tongues unto men when there was no interpreter.

Appreciate your response, thankyou and God bless.

 

[Imagican]

the entirety of the chapters in which Paul refers to tongues are written in REBUKE of those that were NOT following IN SPIRIT. There is NO other explanation to be gathered IN TRUTH.

You CONTINUALLY 'pick and choose' individual lines of scripture in an ATTEMPT to prove something that is NOT there.

You point out that Paul offered that he spoke tongues more than them ALL, yet you deliberately left out the VERY next line in which he PLAINLY offers the RELEVANCE of tongues and places them in their proper perspective: I had RATHER speak FIVE WORDS of wisdom than TEN THOUSAND words in an unknown tongue'.

Golly gee, but you are surely insistant that what you BELIEVE to BE tongues are those mentioned in The Word. I find this the MOST amusing part in discussing such issues with those that BELIEVE in such a manner. They pick and choose a few words of REBUKE and turn them around INTO somehting completely DIFFERENT than what has been offered. WOW.

Paul also offers that 'tongues' are NOT 'completely unknown' but unknown to the USER. For those that interpret DO KNOW them. He speaks of this PLAINLY in that he offers that a 'voice spoken WITHOUT recognition' is NO different than an 'instrument' that plays the WRONG sound. For how is one to interpret that which is UNKNOWN?

Tongues were FOR A PURPOSE. Those that speak the gibberish that is NOW DAYS refered to as 'tongues' are NOT speaking for ANY purpose except their OWN edification. We are NEVER taught to SEEK our own but that of OTHERS well being.

So your concepts are as backwards as your belief in that which doesn't exist in truth. For to believe such is to be forced to ALTER one's entire understanding.

When we see the gifts offfered in order of importance, we find that 'tongues' are at the BOTTOM of the list. Paul offers that we are to TREAT them as such. NOT to chase after those gifts of LEAST importance, but to strive to gain those that are the MOST important. And tongues are at the BOTTOM of the list. Use just a 'tad' of common sense and the words that Paul has offered are as clear as they NEED be.

But, if you insist on having it YOUR WAY, then I guess the truth is not as relevant to YOU as it is to ME. I don't CARE what 'makes me FEEL good'. I care much more for that which is TRUTH regardless of HOW it MAKES ME FEEL.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Dave Slayer]

Paul does not say he spoke in tongues of angels. He was using a hyperboyle when he said that. I illustrated my point very well on that. Even if Paul spoke in tongues of angels that doesn't mean angels spoke in some heavenly language that sounds like baby talk. An angel appeared to prophets and to the virgin Mary and probably in a language that they could understand. Paul did speak in tongues of men, but certainly not all of them. He spoke in many tongues, but not all.

I don't mind so much if people wanna say stuff like "alla bammba camma ramma moosa", if that edifies you, go for it. Just don't tell me that I am not saved if I don't do it. When I pray in English, I am edified.

When was the last time you tongue speakers spoke in an assembly and had your tongues interpreted for the edification of everyone? Probably zero. People seek to edify themselves more than they seek to edify others. That is what Paul was warning against and yet people still do it. I am glad to not be a part of this kind of Church.

 

[FightingAtheism]

Imagician, Dave Slayer

I just find the two posts empty. I wasn't expecting of you guys to go off, meaning that you leaving scripture. What I say is backed up by scripture, and for you to refute, refute with scipture. This is how it works.

I don't mind so much if people wanna say stuff like "alla bammba camma ramma moosa", if that edifies you, go for it. Just don't tell me that I am not saved if I don't do it. When I pray in English, I am edified.

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.
(1Co.14:2)

4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
(1Co.14:4)

Bible doesn't go against praying in understanding, but the Bible also tells us to pray in the Holy Spirit.

Jude 20-21 But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. NIV

Eph 6:18 8 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints. NIV

Imagician wrote:

When we see the gifts offfered in order of importance, we find that 'tongues' are at the BOTTOM of the list. Paul offers that we are to TREAT them as such. NOT to chase after those gifts of LEAST importance, but to strive to gain those that are the MOST important. And tongues are at the BOTTOM of the list. Use just a 'tad' of common sense and the words that Paul has offered are as clear as they NEED be.

When did Paul wrote that the list of gifts in chapter 12 of first Corinthians is listed in a chronological order from most important to least important? There is no such thing as gifts of "least important". Every gift is from the same Spirit.

4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
(1Co.12:4-7)

I have no desire to response to the rest of your posts, if you would just use scripture I would have all desire and respect. Hope you guys change your approuch, God bless.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Imagician, Dave SlayerI just find the two posts empty. I wasn't expecting of you guys to go off, meaning that you leaving scripture. What I say is backed up by scripture, and for you to refute, refute with scipture. This is how it works.

You are correct, we need to refute with scripture. And I did use some in my previous post, allthough I could have used more. I would have used more scripture except for it usually goes nowhere. Besides, the burden of proof shouldn't be on me to disprove tongues (the gibberish kind) as much as it should be on tongue speakers. They should be the ones proving it is scriptural instead of me disproving that it isn't scriptural. I do not believe it is scriptural. I have been in these debates in the past and have used much scripture. But it never fails that people will always find a way to get around the scriptures I post that refute their belief. So, in a sense, it is a waste of time. However since you mentioned it, I will make a post that follows up to this one with more scripture. But I will guarantee you ahead of time, they will find a way to get around them and make them say what they want them to say.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Let's first establish what the scriptures teach that tongues are.

Acts 26:14
... I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Ezra 4:7
... and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue.

Revelation 9:11
... whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

As you can clearly see, tongues are being described as languages, known languages spoken by people on earth. These are foreign languages.

In Acts 2, we see tongues being mentioned. We should assume that they are known languages because the scriptures teach that tongues are a language that people speak in.

Acts 2:4,6
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

When it says "every man heard them speak in his own language", this means that the Apostles spoke in (foreign) languages of the Jews assembled in the crowd. The Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles and they could speak in these foreign languages without having previously learned them.

Acts 2: 9-11
Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues [languages] the wonderful works of God.

Notice: "we do hear them speak in our tongues[languages] the wonderful works of God". This is proof that the tongues being spoken here were indeed foreign languages and not gibberish. These passage also list the nations where these people came from, and these nations had foreign languages that were being spoken.

The crowd would not have been amazed (confounded) if they were speaking in some unknown gibberish tongue.

Act 2:7
And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

The reason why people in the crowd said "are not all these which speak Galilaeans?" is because they were obviously unlearned. They could not have learned all of these foreign languages. Galilee would be what is considered a "hick town". The crowd was amazed they could speak in their own languages because there was no way they could have learned them coming from a hick town. This is why it was a miracle.

Acts 2:8
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Notice it says "wherein we were born?". People speak in a language where they were born. For example, If someone was born in France, they would speak French. If someone was born in the UK, they would speak English. People do not speak in gibberish where they are born.

Now, there are many Christians who will say "yes, the tongues here were obviously foreign languages". But they go on to say "but the tongues in Corinth were different, they were not foreign languages". Allthough some believe both foreign and unknown languages (ecstatic utterances and/or prayer languages) were being spoken.

However, why would the definition of tongues change all of a sudden? Paul never made a distintion of two different kinds of tongues. We should assume that the tongues in Corinthians are the same as they were in Acts, and in other parts of the Bible.

We also need to ask, what was the Biblical purpose of tongues? Well, let's see what the Bible says.

1 Corinthians 14:21-22
In the law it is written, WITH MEN OF OTHER TONGUES AND OTHER LIPS WILL I SPEAK UNTO THIS PEOPLE; AND YET FOR ALL THAT WILL THEY NOT HEAR ME, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

Paul was quoting Iasiah here.

Isaiah 28:11-13
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little;

These passages tell us the purpose for tongues. "Tongues are for a sign". This is not for believers but for unbelievers (a sign to unbelieving Jews). 1 Corinthians 14:21 is a referring to Isaiah chapter 28. Also, Isaiah 28:11-13 says that God will cause people to speak to the Jews (this people) with another tongue. Yet they will not hear, but will fall backward and be broken and snared (judgment will come).

On the day of Pentecost, after the apostles spoke in tongues, a great crowd gathered to see what was happening. The Apostle Peter then spoke to this Jewish crowd. One thing he said to them was:

Acts 2:32-36
This Jesus hath God raised up, where-of we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear [tongues]. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, THE LORD SAID UNTO MY LORD, SIT THOU ON MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE THY FOES THY FOOTSTOOL. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

This is the same Jesus whom the Jews had crucified was now in Heaven, exalted at the right hand of God. His foes (including the Jews who had crucified him) will be made his footstool. Because of this, Peter warned them in verse 40: "save yourselves from this untoward generation (from the judgment to come upon it)". The evidence (sign) that this judgment would come was that Jesus had "shed forth that which ye now see and hear (tongues)". Tongues were a sign to the Jews who had rejected and killed their Messiah, that God’s judgment was going to come.

In my next post, I will deal with the "proof texts" that people often use to support their position in prayer language tongues.

 

[Dave Slayer]

Now let's examine the "proof" texts. Keep in mind the defintion of the word "tongue" in my previous post.

Jude 1:20
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Many interpret this verse as saying: praying in the Holy Ghost (praying in the Spirit) refers to speaking in tongues. The Bible also tells us to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). If "praying in the Spirit" means to pray in tongues, then "walking in the spirit" must mean, to walk in tongues? This is nonsense. To walk in the Spirit means to walk "according to" the Spirit’s leading. Praying in the Spirit means to pray "according to the Spirit’s leading". The Holy Spirit will sometimes prompt us to pray for certain things. When we follow that prompting, we are praying "in the Spirit". This verse has nothing to do whatsover with speaking (or praying) in tongues.

1 Corinthians 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Many interpret this verse as saying: tongues is a heavenly prayer language spoken by angels. We need to point out the difference between the word "tongue" and the word "tongues". When the word "tongue" is used, it is referring to one language. When the word "tongues" is used, it refers to more than one language. So, we must define our terms properly according to the scriptures.

Tongue = one language.

Tongues = more than one language.

Saying that, "Tongues is a heavenly prayer language." does not make any sense. Proper English, we would have us say, "Tongues are heavenly prayer languages." But no one says that tongues are prayer languages (plural). They use the word "tongues" as if it were the same thing as the word "tongue." This ends up resulting in a twisting of scripture.

1 Corinthians 13:1 says "tongues" (plural), not "tongue" (singular). It says "tongues of men and of angels". There are tongues (plural) of men and there are tongues (plural) of angels. This verse does not say that angels speak in "a tongue" (one language). It says that angels speak in "tongues" (more than one language). This verse does not say that angels speak in a heavenly language.

If so, then what is this verse saying? It says that if a someone were able to speak with all the tongues that a man might be able to speak with (some men know many languages), and even with all the tongues that angels are able to speak with (they probably know thousands), but if they do not have charity, all they are doing is making a lot of noise. This verse is making the point that love is much more important than speaking in tongues.

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.

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

Many interpret these verses as saying: speaking in tongues is a private prayer language. It is also stated that the tongues spoken of here could not be languages, because no man was able to understand them. This is taking these verses out of context. Paul is not saying that tongues is a private prayer language that can't be understood. He is pointing out the futility of speaking in a language (tongue) that is "unknown' to the hearers.

The point of this verse has to do with edification. If someone is speaking in a language that is "unknown" to the hearers, how does that edify? That person is left speaking to the only one who can understand, God. That is why Paul forbade speaking in tongues without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:28).

Romans 8:26
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.

Many interpret this verse as saying: since we sometimes don’t know what to pray for, we should speak in tongues and the Holy Spirit will pray through us the exact thing that needs to be prayed. Is that what this verse means? No. This verse is saying that the Holy Spirit will pray "for" us not "through" us. It also says that what is prayed are "groanings which cannot be utterered. Because tongues are uttered (spoken) they cannot be what this verse is talking about.

1 Corinthians 14:4
He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Many interpret this verse as saying: tongues is a private prayer language which strengthens and edifies the Christian. It is interesting that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians chapter 14 to rebuke the Corinthians for misusing their gifts, especially tongues. The Corinthians were each trying to take the "spotlight" and "show off" as the most spiritual. Because of this, Paul rebukes them and tells them that this is not edifying for others gathered in the church (1 Cor. 14:12, 26).

Because they were trying to "flaunt" their gifts, the Corinthians were "edifying" themselves. This verse is not a commendation, it's a rebuke.

I am sure there are more proof texts that can be examined but there are some of the main ones. I hope that this has helped you to understand my view on tongues. As a human, I cannot say that my interpretation is fully accurate. However, this is how I interpret these scriptures and I believe this is what the scriptures teach on this subject.

 

[follower of Christ]

Thank goodness the Lord got me away from this tongues pushing cult years ago.
Tongues are for a sign for those who DONT believe....who NEED proof...not for those who have faith that doesnt need to see in order to believe.

The Jews required a sign and so at Pentecost they were given one.
Peter needed a sign to prove to him that the Gentiles had been included in this covenant and so he got to see it.
The church needed to see that the promise of the Spirit had actually occurred, so they were given this proof.
The scripture shows quite clearly that tongues is for a sign to them that dont believe..those who need to SEE to believe....thus it is not needed in the church in the way that prophesying is.
I dont need a sign, therefore I do not need tongues. My faith isnt that weak.

 

[cyberjosh]

I'll have to remind myself to reply to this topic in depth later. FightingAtheism, I believe you are sincere, as was I when I first asked myself if one has to speak in tongues for one to be Baptised in the Spirit, and God showed me that is not the case. I have a sincere and scriptural reason for believing so, and I would generally agree with Free that the evidence of having the Holy Spirit is a changed heart and bearing fruit in one's life.

Salvation itself is not predicated upon being able to speak in tongues, and yet every believer is given the Holy Spirit as a seal when they believe in Christ, repent of thier sin, and confess him with their mouth. All believers are Baptised by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), all believers have been "made to drink into one Spirit". Every believer is given the power (dunamis) of the Holy Spirit, however many do not really understand their ability and right as empowered by Christ, much less know how, to utilize the grace of God to walk in the power of the Spirit. Too many are babes in their understanding of the Holy Spirit's power and that is the enemy's biggest weapon: to blind believers to the rightful inheritance and access to God's grace that they have to enable them to walk in the Spirit and not after the flesh. I unfortunately know the battle between the Spirit and the flesh all to well, but I am convinced of the power of the Spirit and its ability to help Christians in time of need. I have experienced that power in an amazing way, and yet I have never spoken in tongues.

My general stance on tongues is that it is a legitimate gift still in effect but it is not the evidence of salvation or being Baptized in the Holy Spirit, but rather it can be an evidence of a gift and each believer is given a different gift from God. Paul made it clear in his rhetorical question among other questions that all demand the answer 'no' when he asked about Christians, "Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Cor. 12:30), and some even rather than speaking tongues can interpret it. Tongues is not a gift given to every Christian, yet all gifts whether it be prophecy, teaching, interpretation, etc. are all given by the Holy Spirit and are evidences of the Holy Spirit's presence. I meant to make this short, but this is nothing in comparison to what I can say about this when I have more time. But please ponder over what little I have said here for now, and I would love to discuss this more in sincerity and love with you when I get the chance later.

And lastly before I go:

I said no man or woman speaks in tongues today in the Bilical sense because the need for them has been fulfilled.

Actually Duval I disagree with that. My Dad speaks in tongues when he prays and it is clearly a Gift from the spirit. He is not Pentecostal or Charismatic, and has never excercised his gift in public, but only in the private and intimate quarters of prayer before God. Only God can enable one to recieve such a gift. I do have issues with the way many Churches handle tongues today, but I do not deny it as being a legitimate & presently-given gift to believers.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[follower of Christ]

follower of christ

Yes, I know that passage.. So what are you trying to say?

Its quite odd that you even have to ask. If you understood tongues as you claim to, then there ought to have been no confusion as to what I was trying to say with that passage. To one who understands what tongues is, that passage is crystal clear.

Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe. (1Co 14:20-22)

 

[FightingAtheism]

Dave Slayer

Thanks for your reply and effort.

Jude 1:20
But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

Many interpret this verse as saying: praying in the Holy Ghost (praying in the Spirit) refers to speaking in tongues. The Bible also tells us to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16). If "praying in the Spirit" means to pray in tongues, then "walking in the spirit" must mean, to walk in tongues? This is nonsense. To walk in the Spirit means to walk "according to" the Spirit’s leading. Praying in the Spirit means to pray "according to the Spirit’s leading". The Holy Spirit will sometimes prompt us to pray for certain things. When we follow that prompting, we are praying "in the Spirit". This verse has nothing to do whatsover with speaking (or praying) in tongues.

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.
(1Co.14:2)

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.
(1Co.14:14,15)

These verses clearly show us that praying in the Spirit is praying with tongues.

If "praying in the Spirit" means to pray in tongues, then "walking in the spirit" must mean, to walk in tongues? This is nonsense.

Tongues is not the Spirit itself, it's part of the Spirit. For example, the words you are uttering.

Acts 2:8
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

Notice it says "wherein we were born?". People speak in a language where they were born. For example, If someone was born in France, they would speak French. If someone was born in the UK, they would speak English. People do not speak in gibberish where they are born.

Now, there are many Christians who will say "yes, the tongues here were obviously foreign languages". But they go on to say "but the tongues in Corinth were different, they were not foreign languages". Allthough some believe both foreign and unknown languages (ecstatic utterances and/or prayer languages) were being spoken.

However, why would the definition of tongues change all of a sudden? Paul never made a distintion of two different kinds of tongues. We should assume that the tongues in Corinthians are the same as they were in Acts, and in other parts of the Bible.

The first ones to speak with tongues were the disciples, which occured on the day of the Pentecost. People often believe that on that day they were speaking in earthly languages.

I believe this to be incorrect. On that day, there was a two-fold miracle going on. The miracle of speaking and hearing. The miracle of hearing would be the enabling of some to understand tongues. Not all understood them because some onlookers made fun of them and accused them of being drunk (Acts 2:13). (Source: tbm.org/tongues.htm)

Tongue = one language.

Tongues = more than one language.

Saying that, "Tongues is a heavenly prayer language." does not make any sense. Proper English, we would have us say, "Tongues are heavenly prayer languages." But no one says that tongues are prayer languages (plural). They use the word "tongues" as if it were the same thing as the word "tongue." This ends up resulting in a twisting of scripture.

1 Corinthians 13:1 says "tongues" (plural), not "tongue" (singular). It says "tongues of men and of angels". There are tongues (plural) of men and there are tongues (plural) of angels. This verse does not say that angels speak in "a tongue" (one language). It says that angels speak in "tongues" (more than one language). This verse does not say that angels speak in a heavenly language.

In the Greek manuscripts, they don't refer to languages as "tongues. t when speaking of "unknown tongues", they actually do refer to it as "tongues".

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

Many interpret these verses as saying: speaking in tongues is a private prayer language. It is also stated that the tongues spoken of here could not be languages, because no man was able to understand them. This is taking these verses out of context. Paul is not saying that tongues is a private prayer language that can't be understood. He is pointing out the futility of speaking in a language (tongue) that is "unknown' to the hearers.

Once again:

Paul was not against praying with tongues or speaking unto God(v2), he was against the abuse of tongues -start speaking with tongues unto men when there was no interpreter.

Stop being ignorant and read the context to see what the chapter is about. I don't know how many times I have repeated myself, it is just getting very fustrating.

The point of this verse has to do with edification. If someone is speaking in a language that is "unknown" to the hearers, how does that edify? That person is left speaking to the only one who can understand, God. That is why Paul forbade speaking in tongues without an interpreter (1 Cor. 14:28).

4 He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
(1Co.14:4)

It edifies the Spirit inside you, not the hearers around you. Once again, Paul was encouraging us to pray with tongues.

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God. 1 Corinthians 14:28

The only thing Paul was against was speaking with tongues unto men when there was no interpreter.

Romans 8:26
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.

Many interpret this verse as saying: since we sometimes don’t know what to pray for, we should speak in tongues and the Holy Spirit will pray through us the exact thing that needs to be prayed. Is that what this verse means? No. This verse is saying that the Holy Spirit will pray "for" us not "through" us. It also says that what is prayed are "groanings which cannot be utterered. Because tongues are uttered (spoken) they cannot be what this verse is talking about.

It also says that what is prayed are "groanings which cannot be utterered. Because tongues are uttered (spoken) they cannot be what this verse is talking about


Yes, you are correct, the verse is not talking about speaking with tongues (I never even brought this verse). But the 1 Cor. 14:2 passage says the same thing except it is talking about praying with tongues.

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.
(1Co.14:2)

1 Corinthians 14:4
He that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Many interpret this verse as saying: tongues is a private prayer language which strengthens and edifies the Christian. It is interesting that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians chapter 14 to rebuke the Corinthians for misusing their gifts, especially tongues. The Corinthians were each trying to take the "spotlight" and "show off" as the most spiritual. Because of this, Paul rebukes them and tells them that this is not edifying for others gathered in the church (1 Cor. 14:12, 26).

No, this verse is saying that tongues is for praying because it only edifies the speaker, and that tongues is not for speaking unto men because it will not edify others around you (except when there's an interpreter then it will edify others too).

Anyways, maybe I should open a thread in the Bible Study forum of the study of chapter 14 in 1 Corinthians.

 

[Dave Slayer]

FightingAtheism, I have read over your reply to my repsonse. I think I will have to just agree to disagree with you here. However, I would like to correct you on one thing.

You say the tongues spoken at Pentecost couldn't have been earthly languages. If that is the case, then why does it say:

Acts 2:8
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

People speak earthly languages where they are born, not unknown private prayer language tongues. The next few verses go on to list the nations represented where these people were from:

Acts 2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
Acts 2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The languages that are spoken in these nations were the same languages that the Apostles spoke in when the people from these nations were gathered in the crowd.

Also, notice in Acts 2:11 where it says: "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God".

It says the Apostles spoke in the tongues of the people gathered. It is as clear as day here. The Apostles were not speaking in prayer languages tongues here.

You say they couldn't have been earthly languages because the Apostles were being accused of being drunk. I disagree. If they were speaking in different languages at the same time, of course people would think they were drunk, (especially for the time of day that it was.) The Apostles would be talking over each other. However, others knew what they were saying because they heard them speak in their own languages.

"we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God".

The reason why some mocked is because they had closed their ears to what the Apostles were saying. But like I said, the Apostles spoke in languages of those gathered.

Acts 2:8
And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

It does not get any clearer than that.

You credited Tom Brown for your response on earthly languages. I have read his arguments before, they are not convincing to me. He sounds like a trained United Pentecostal. I am very close to labeling Untited Pentecostals as a cult because they teach many heretical doctrines. I won't get into that here. My end of the debate is over. I knew ahead of time my arguments would go nowhere which is why I do not often take the time to post such lenghly arguments.

I am not saying that my interpretations are "the best", but I argued the best I knew how based on my understanding of the scriptures. We disagree, and that is fine. I think now it is time to move on and leave this debate left as it is. You have your mind made up, I have my mind made up. To continue such discourse would be a waste of time.

God Bless,

Dave

 

[FightingAtheism]

Dave Slayer

There was a miracle of enabling some to understand tongues. Not all understood tongues, because some onlookers made fun of the disciples and accused them of being drunk.

13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
(Ac.2:13)

The reason why some mocked is because they had closed their ears to what the Apostles were saying. But like I said, the Apostles spoke in languages of those gathered.

Because the 17 different nations heard the disciples praising God in their own language proves that it actually was a miracle and not a gift. How would the disciples be able to speak in 17 languages at the same time?

Acts 2 also proves that tongues is not for preaching, instead they were praising God by praying with tongues, praying in the Spirit.

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
(Ac.2:11)

Most important thing is, is that if your interpretation is correct, then the Bible contradicts.

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.
(1Co.14:2)

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.
(1Co.14:14,15)

(This verses are in context. By explaining what praying in tongues is, Paul is telling them of why it is wrong to start speaking with tongues unto men when there is no interpreter.)

I am not saying that my interpretations are "the best", but I argued the best I knew how based on my understanding of the scriptures. We disagree, and that is fine. I think now it is time to move on and leave this debate left as it is. You have your mind made up, I have my mind made up. To continue such discourse would be a waste of time.

Dave, you are wrong. We, as Christians, are supposed to search the scripture and by that be one in the understanding. With love and an open mind, it is possible.

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
(Jn.5:39)

11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
(Ac.17:11)

 

[Dave Slayer]

Fightingatheism,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my arguments. However, I believe I have presented my arguments the best I know how based on my understanding of the scriptures that deal with this subject. There was a time when I wanted to believe in your interpretation of tongues but in my studies, but I have arrived at different conclusions.

My biggest problem is when someone tells me I am not saved because I don't speak in tongues or have my own prayer language. I had a run in with some Pentecostals in the past that weren't the best of times. I am closing my end of the debate on this, at least for now. It just hurts to be told I am not saved because I do not speak in their interpretation of tongues. I hope you can at least understand that.

God Bless,

Dave

 

[mutzrein]

There is a group of people who erroneously believe that speaking in tongues is the evidence of receiving the Holy Spirit and therefore if one does not speak in tongues, they are not 'saved'.

I am not one. Although I sometimes speak in a tongue (which is not a language I have learned) when moved by the Spirit of God, I know of others who are born of the same Spirit, who have been given other gifts. Gifts such as prophecy, interpretation of tongues, discernment.

The gifts of the Spirit of God are many and varied and I would implore any who have felt condemned because they have not spoken in tongues to earnestly wait on God for the 'best' gift that God has in store for them.

 

[FightingAtheism]

My biggest problem is when someone tells me I am not saved because I don't speak in tongues or have my own prayer language. I had a run in with some Pentecostals in the past that weren't the best of times. I am closing my end of the debate on this, at least for now. It just hurts to be told I am not saved because I do not speak in their interpretation of tongues. I hope you can at least understand that.

Dave Slayer, I have never accused you of not being saved.

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not [himself], neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many [stripes].
(Lk.12:47)

Best wishes, God bless!

 

[FightingAtheism]

cybershark5886

Thankyou for the response, cybershark5886.

Salvation itself is not predicated upon being able to speak in tongues, and yet every believer is given the Holy Spirit as a seal when they believe in Christ, repent of thier sin, and confess him with their mouth. All believers are Baptised by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), all believers have been "made to drink into one Spirit".

The Holy Spirit is proved by speaking in tongues. Tongues is not the Holy Spirit itself, it's part of the Holy Spirit, just as the words you are uttering. The verse (1 Corinthians 12:13) does not claim that we receive the Holy Spirit the moment we repent, and confess him with our mouth. If that was so, then the Bible clearly contradicts itself:

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
(Ac.8:14-18)

They had accepted Jesus Christ, they were baptised, but they had not recieved the Holy Ghost!

Paul made it clear in his rhetorical question among other questions that all demand the answer 'no' when he asked about Christians, "Do all speak in tongues?" (1 Cor. 12:30), and some even rather than speaking tongues can interpret it. Tongues is not a gift given to every Christian, yet all gifts whether it be prophecy, teaching, interpretation, etc. are all given by the Holy Spirit and are evidences of the Holy Spirit's presence.

"Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?" -1 Corinthians 12:30

There's a big misinterpretation of the verse. In this chapter, you notice that Paul is talking about the 'different'(v10) kind of tongues, meaning 'not the usual' kind of tongues. The usual kind of tongues is a language no men can understand nor interpret. However, the 'different' kinds of tongues are the type of tongues that can be interpreted.

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: -1Co.14:18

They all spoke with tongues. However, if my conclusion wouldn't be correct, then why would Paul tell them that tongues is not for everyone if they all spoke with tongues?

 

[Dave Slayer]

My biggest problem is when someone tells me I am not saved because I don't speak in tongues or have my own prayer language. I had a run in with some Pentecostals in the past that weren't the best of times. I am closing my end of the debate on this, at least for now. It just hurts to be told I am not saved because I do not speak in their interpretation of tongues. I hope you can at least understand that.

Dave Slayer, I have never accused you of not being saved.

You haven't, but some have in the past. I am saved and I have the Holy Spirit living inside me!

 

[Imagican]

I would like to add this for what it's worth.

When I was younger me and my cohorts did a LOT of drugs. I was a 'child of the 70's' and that's 'just what we DID'.

On a NUBER of occasions I witnessed those under the influence of hallucinogens 'speaking' in what 'appeared to be', different 'languages'. On EACH occasion, when confronted about WHAT they were doing, those that were doing it got a 'blank' look on their faces and denied that the events took place.

I don't BELIEVE that these were speaking as THE Spirit gave them utterance. I believe that these were 'temporarity possessed' by SOME spirit, but not the Holy Spirit.

My point: there are obviously 'other languages' that have existed PREVIOUS to those that are in existence today. The Egyptians language is ALL but lost today. We have been able to decipher SOME of their writtings, and those of the Babylonians, but I don't believe that we have an accurate means of discerning what their languages would have ACTUALLY sounded like. Some of it is JUST a guess.

These languages have NOT been LOST completely however. They STILL exist in the collective memory of entities that have been in existence SINCE before even THEIR time. And, quite often, these are ABLE to be manifest in the lives of men NOW DAYS. I personally BELIEVE that I have witnessed this. Otherwise, it would be hard to even GUESS as to WHAT these events actually contained. For those that 'spoke' in these 'unknown languages' could BARELY use their OWN language and KNEW no others.

Now, WHAT were these folks DOING? In WHAT 'unknown tongue' were they SPEAKING. I have NOT 'made this up', (I believe this to be almost TOO wacked out to BE made up), these events DID take place. So, what did I witness?

While we kNOW that the 'gift of tongues' exists, (or existed), we certainly have NO guide to SHOW us exactly WHAT they are. In my experience, I have found that RARELY do we find tongues being spoken EXCEPT in those GROUPS that speak in tongues. It seems rediculous to even ATTEMPT to believe that groups the like of those that I have witnessed were somehow BLESSED with 'special gifts' that OTHER groups that more closely follow The Word are NOT Blessed with.

Follow me here. The Baptist DON'T speak in tongues. I mean MAIN STREAM Baptist. The Methodists DON'T speak in tongues. The Catholics DON'T speak in tongues. ONLY a very very small and NEW group actually believe, teach and practice this.

Question for those that profess a belief and practice of tongues: WHY is it ONLY a 'gift' to those groups that TEACH and PRACTICE it? How is it that the Spirit has been UNABLE to bring about utterance to those in OTHER denominations?

Since tongues are for them that BELIEVE NOT, if the answer is that The Spirit ONLY offers such gifts to those that HAVE The Spirit, the obvious implication would be that there is NO Spirit in ANY other denominations. ONLY in those denominations that BELEIVE AND TEACH TONGUES.

And folks, I find THIS idea to be the MOST rediculous possible. For God wants EVERYONE to KNOW Him. That some will chose to NEVER get to know Him, that does NOT take away from His desire. Now, wouldn't it stand to reason, that IF there were those that were TRULY seeking God, that IF tongues existed today as they have in the past, that God would send The Spirit to SHOW those that are 'like myself' that this gift does indeed exist and is still able to offer edification of The Church? When, in fact, I have YET to witness tongues being spoken WITH an interpreter. YES, I have been to Pentacostal groups where a GROUP of women will, at one point in a meeting, flop on the ground and start mumbling, or SHOUTING OUT, in an indistinguishable gibberish, (that by the way, does NOT sound 'like a language AT ALL but some sort of mindless blubbering), but NEVER with an interpreter. I have witnessed Pastors of these type churches mumble in tongues between lines of their message. But I have yet to even have these do so WITH an interpreter. And ALL of this points to a DIFFERENT direction than that we have been offered up in scripture.

Do tongues exist? I don't know. I know that the Bible speaks of them. Have I EVER witnessed the use of TRUE tongues? I don't THINK so. Everything that has affected me concerning them has pointed to 'something DIFFERENT' than that offered up in scripture. I am a 'seeker' of THE Truth. I have studied this behavior pretty intensely and have YET to find ANY conclusive PROOF that 'tongues are FOR today or are being accurately USED today. I have those that TELL me that what they speak ARE the tongues mentioned in the Bible. But ALL that I have witnessed has taken place in contradiction to that which we have been offered in instruction.

And, folks, I have WITNESSED, FIRST HAND, the destructive nature of those churches that TEACH that one MUST 'speak in tongues' in order to show signs of the Holy Spirit within them. This is a LIE straight from HELL. This is designed to FORCE others into practicing such behavior. And it also serves to separate those that DO from those that DON'T as an INDICATION that those that DO ARE filled with the Holy Spirit and those that DON'T are NOT. UTTER FOOLISHNESS designed to snare those that are TOO simple to be able to defend themselves against such teachings.

I have NEVER been moved to SPEAK, nor have I been moved to interpret. I have KNOWN God and I have KNOWN HIs Son. There have been times in my walk when I knew LITTLE else. And throughout it all, I have YET to witness what I would classify as TRUE tongues. Why is this? Why would God, MY Father, choose to leave me SO IGNORANT?

Blessings,

MEC