TRUTH about Speaking in Tongues - JOHN MACARTHUR

[Dave Slayer]

[youtube:1xsazw0g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deBkXxYThz0[/youtube:1xsazw0g]

[youtube:1xsazw0g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr73S65gN_c[/youtube:1xsazw0g]

[youtube:1xsazw0g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-fU3XMpKfQ[/youtube:1xsazw0g]

 

[Imagican]

Wow, NO comments??????

Deep stuff. This guy has hit on that which is deeper than my OWN understanding. He has offered PURE revelation to those willing to SEE and accept it.

Funny, but one point that He hit on rings TOTALLY unalterably TRUE. IF God had 'created' some 'spcial tongue' so that Satan couldn't intervene, don't you reacon that it would have been mentioned by Jesus, the apostles, SOMEBODY would have offered us a description of such WOULND'T they?

It is obvious that the REASON that I have felt SO unfortable when witnessing those that speak in 'tongues' is that they WERE speaking to 'a god'. We have been commanded to pray TO God, but we have also been commanded to speak to EACH OTHER. If one speaks in a gibberish that some 'call tongues', they are NOT speaking to THE God nor are they speaking to each other. They CANNOT be offering edification to God for God NEEDS no edification. And they CANNOT be offering edification to The Church, for if their words are NOT understood there is NO edification. So WHAT exactly ARE they doing? Hmmmm......The SAME thing that the Corinthians were doing, falling BACK into their pagan ways. This is WHY Paul offered SO MUCH rebuke concerning tongues.

Thanks for the offering.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[FightingAtheism]

Back in Russia, the KGB used to imitate tongues so that they could penetrate inside a church. By some time, they probably were considered to be part of the church, and probably already become pastors. And when they have their position they start to gradually pervert the Gospel. This is called 'destroying a church from the inside'. The devil always attacks the truth, and tries to pervert it/

Although I lean towards Pentecostalism, I'm non-denominational. A lot of Pentecostals don't accept this behaviour that what is shown on the video. I also don't accept that behaviour, these people are just perverting the true gospel, just like the Corinthians did.

Dave Slayer, you have read 1 Corinthians 14. You do accept the interpretation that the Corinthians were abusing the speaking with tongues. Same exact thing with a lot of these Pentecostal churches! You see them speaking with tongues unto men when there is no interpreter. 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) Speaking with tongues and 'holy laughter'

Don't look at the people as your example, look at the Apostles.

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];
(Eph.2:20)

 

[Bad Rabbit]

I also don't accept that behaviour, these people are just perverting the true gospel, just like the Corinthians did.

Hello FightingAtheism,


This doesn't get us anywhere. Every believer can use the "No true Scotsman" fallacy when confronted with, say, the cacophony of glossolalia from their religious brothers and sisters, as they roll around in the aisles of their churches, like the curious individuals in these videos.

I conclude from these clips that we are a lamentable species and that extinction might not be such a dreadful fate after all

 

[Free]

I conclude from these clips that we are a lamentable species and that extinction might not be such a dreadful fate after all

That is quite the conclusion.


My conclusion is that such videos do not prove that tongues are false and that John Macarthur is merely one voice among many.

 

[researcher]

I didn't watch the videos. (from the stills it looks like it might be some out of control Southern Baptists/Pentacostals). I never did like out of control, crazy worship stuff. Some people become fanatics concerning spiritual things and can get very scary. There should always be order in the church.

That said, Jesus told the disciples -

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Believers baptized in the Holy Spirit will do these things. It isn't them doing it, it is the HS moving through them.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

That was the initial response to being baptized in the HS. To the one baptizing, it would a be a sign that the people were actually baptized. When I was baptized in the HS I spoke in tongues. It wasn't loud, wasn't crazy, wasn't forced. When the guys at the men's home group laid their hands on me, my mouth opened, and, I started speaking in another tongue. And those in the group knew it had worked. After that, we went on with Bible study. I've healed the sick and cast out demons by the HS also. Prophecied in the congregation once. Now that's heavy. When the HS drops down on you, there is no mistaking it. And good fruits follow, and people are edified, or healed, or demons cast out. And you will speak in tongues too.

Speaking in tongues in the congregation is different from speaking in tongues when you are praying for someone for healing or whatever. In the congregation people are supposed to be edified thus need an interpretation. Outside of a church service etc, believers sometimes speak in tongues because of the spiritual situation at the time. It seems to be more prevalent when people are meeting together for prayer, or for healing. The tongues that are spoke come out softer (as opposed to louder in the congregation because people need to hear). In any case it's the HS giving the utterance. Of course, Satan can replicate the gift. But the fruits would be evident. People should be aware of what kind of situation they are in, and if they should speak in tongues at all.

1Co 14:5 Now I would have you all speak with tongues, but rather that ye should prophesy: and greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Hearing a tongue interpreted edifies the same as hearing a prophecy. There is just an extra step added in getting to the message. Seeing a tongue spoken, and then, the HS speak through another giving the interpretation is a very cool thing. It's one of those things that lets you know, "wow, God is here." I've only seen that happen a few times though. The gift of prophecy seems to be more prevalent (at least at the church I used to go to). And, hearing the HS speak through a person is an awesome thing. That's God (the HS) dropping down on a person and speaking directly to his people. Absolutely amazing.

Same thing happened in old times -

Num 11:25 And Jehovah came down in the cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and put it upon the seventy elders: and it came to pass,
that, when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did so no more.

In any event, if tongues are spoken in the congregation, there should be an interpreter, and, there should be leaders who make sure that there is order to the process. If there is an interpreter, someone with a tongue should speak, and, if some receive a prophetic word, 2 or 3 of them should speak with the leaders overseeing the process so it doesn't get out of control.

At least, that's what it says in the Bible.

 

[Bad Rabbit]

My conclusion is that such videos do not prove that tongues are false and that John Macarthur is merely one voice among many.

It seems that something post-modern this way comes and that it slouches towards Bethlehem, waiting to bathe in a sea of relativism.

I thought that Bertrand Russell had done away with this type of, um, reasoning, with his excellent tea pot analogy.

It could be that there is something to speaking in tongues and it could be that my real father is an Arabian prince and it could be that after death we will be quizzed, for exactly 23 weeks on South American geography by a four-headed demon named Earl, and it could be that there is some truth to the utterances of flea-infested goat herders who professed to be filled with the Holy Spirit or some other stuffing, but in my long, misspend and sordid life I have learned to view the antics of confused, bipedal primates with some suspicion.

 

[Rick W]

1Co 14:27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

 

[Free]

My conclusion is that such videos do not prove that tongues are false and that John Macarthur is merely one voice among many.

It seems that something post-modern this way comes and that it slouches towards Bethlehem, waiting to bathe in a sea of relativism.

Alright, I'll admit that I don't know what you're getting at.

I thought that Bertrand Russell had done away with this type of, um, reasoning, with his excellent tea pot analogy.

Assuming that you are being serious, the Tea Pot analogy is certainly not excellent, not even good. And there certainly is nothing wrong with my reasoning.

It could be that there is something to speaking in tongues and it could be that my real father is an Arabian prince and it could be that after death we will be quizzed, for exactly 23 weeks on South American geography by a four-headed demon named Earl, and it could be that there is some truth to the utterances of flea-infested goat herders who professed to be filled with the Holy Spirit or some other stuffing, but in my long, misspend and sordid life I have learned to view the antics of confused, bipedal primates with some suspicion.

And once more, I really don't know what you're getting at.

 

[Bad Rabbit]

And once more, I really don't know what you're getting at.

All right then.
I'll give it another whirl without making smart aleck references to Yeats, but you should really check out 'The Second Coming" if you enjoy poetry. It is truly magnificent.

For reasons I don't quite understand people are very good liars.
They are also quite adept at obfuscation, obscurantism and more than a few of us are not far removed from madness at all times.

Hence, if a stranger comes to me with a rather sizeable claim, like that speaking in tongues is something more than the deranged ranting of an imbecile, or that he/she is in dialogue with the creator of the universe, I require a little thing called.....evidence, or at least a reasonable explanation.

I have been discussing religion for a few years now and, when asked, the pious either give me terrible reasons for what they believe or they don't bother with evidence at all.

Perhaps, however, this is my lucky day and my rabbit ears are erect and rapt with anticipation, for it is possible that you, Free, are not unlike the main character in The Matrix movie and that you are indeed The One who is going to enlighten me and convince me to join your team.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hence, if a stranger comes to me with a rather sizeable claim, like that speaking in tongues is something more than the deranged ranting of an imbecile, or that he/she is in dialogue with the creator of the universe, I require a little thing called.....evidence, or at least a reasonable explanation.

And if no natural explanation can be given of the ability to speak in tongues, what then? It is precisely that evidence of super-natural means of speaking that the gift of tongues is meant to supply. It is possible that some of those tongues are natural tongues (languages) on earth and that since they are for the unbeliever, and the Bible says that the unbeliever could be convinced by them, that it might imply that if say a person from Croatia came to our Church and suddenly the person next to them started speaking in tongues and the Croatian understood it to be in their own natural language, and they discover that you do not know how to speak Croatian then it becomes an evidence of God's witnessing power. Tongues also then, importantly, are not to be spoken in at the personal behest of the speaker when in public, but only as God prompts (not to mention the Bible also mandates the interpretation of tongues when spoken in public - a command mostly ignored by those who speak in tongues). However in private, as Paul mentions one can pray in tongues before God at will, and perhaps that tongue is what Paul calls the "tongue of Angels".

At any rate, the evidence of God's presence is infered by the lack of natural evidence for cognizant vocalizing of the tongue. That is where its witnessing power lies.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Bad Rabbit]

At any rate, the evidence of God's presence is infered by the lack of natural evidence for cognizant vocalizing of the tongue. That is where its witnessing power lies.

God Bless,

~Josh

It doesn't appear that you are trying very hard to find terrestrial causes for the unintelligible gibberish that is uttered by some dimwit who thinks he's having a religious experience.

You can infer God's presence from pretty much any observation you make.
Needless to say that you can also infer the existence of Thor and Baal from the braying of a donkey.
None of this comes even close to a responsible use of your reasoning faculties.

And it is a curiosity to me that some yokel, who spends his Sundays rolling around in the aisle of some crackerbox church in Nowhere, Indiana, who all of a sudden finds himself able to speak Croatian, never makes it to a lab, or even the Discovery Channel to display this amazing talent, which would surely make our linguistic professors very interested and reward the man with fame and riches.

Strangely, this never happens and all we are left with are unsubstantiated claims from the likes of you.

My advice, young Josh, is to lay off the Cool Aid.

 

[FightingAtheism]

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
(Jud.1:10)

Becareful with your comments because you can become God's enemies.

 

[FightingAtheism]

Take a look at my thread if you haven't yet:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=35876

 

[cyberjosh]

It doesn't appear that you are trying very hard to find terrestrial causes for the unintelligible gibberish that is uttered by some dimwit who thinks he's having a religious experience.

To be sure, not just any person who can "make funny sounds" is speaking in the Holy Spirit with tongues. As I said before, it largely (doctrinally speaking - and as is mandated by Scripture for public speech in tongues), it must be interpreted else what is said cannot be validated. It takes some discernment to pick out fakes from the real. And often I have to pray about any supposed interpretation on tongues as well, because (obviously) an interpretation could be made up by someone. Only the Spirit of God can confirm a word's ultimate truth. If you do not have the Holy Spirit of God in you then there are no grounds from which you could meaure its truthfullness and genuineness.

You can infer God's presence from pretty much any observation you make.

Sure, if I had a "make it up as you go" religion, or a "just add religious intepretation and stir for a lifetime" ingredient approach to the Christian faith. But the entirety of the Bible's truth finds its ultimate foundation in testimony of the Spirit (who inspired it in the first place) to confirm or deny truths and falsehoods to the believer. This is not an exact science, and human nature can inhibit hearing the Spirit correctly, but humbleness, diligence in reading the word and engaging in prayer, and having a receptive disposition to be taught by God (as opposed to those who actively seek to make their own religious doctrines) can allow us to hear with more clarity the truths God wants us to know.

Needless to say that you can also infer the existence of Thor and Baal from the braying of a donkey.

A far more compelling evidence would be hearing God open the mouth of a donkey to speak human words to a person (e.g. the story of Balaam and his donkey). ;)

None of this comes even close to a responsible use of your reasoning faculties.

The responsiblity lies in the amount diligence with which you seek to investigate the truths that are claimed and presented to you, much as the Bereans searched the Scriptures to confirm if everything that Paul said was true. My explanation above of the correct way to have discernment in this issue, so that one is not gullible to every person who claims to speak in tongues, should give you an idea of my stance on this.

And it is a curiosity to me that some yokel, who spends his Sundays rolling around in the aisle of some crackerbox church in Nowhere, Indiana, who all of a sudden finds himself able to speak Croatian, never makes it to a lab, or even the Discovery Channel to display this amazing talent, which would surely make our linguistic professors very interested and reward the man with fame and riches.

Listen closely, because even Jesus said this about himself (although I'm going to use a specific modern example), even if Jesus himself was crucified and ressurected on the Discovery Channel people would still not believe if their heart is hard and they don't heed the Word of God. Jesus said, "'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

But perhaps to address your point more directly, the gift of tongues (as is true for any miracle) is not meant to be displayed up on a pedastal. Many Christians might wonder why they can't walk on water like Jesus. Well technically nothing is impossible with God, and God could enable anyone to walk on water as Jesus did (like Peter), however giving people such power for entertainment or whimsical display of power would be useless and God only works miracles for a specific purpose and in specific circumstances. It is not God's intention to make Christians the Justice League of America with superpowers to fly around and save the world from its sins with their "superior supernatural powers". God chose a far more internal way of saving the world by changing the individual's heart through the real and active power of the Holy Spirit to convict people of sin and enlighten them to the truths of God. If one has that life changing power at work in them and has the Holy Spirit they too can see the Spirit of God and work and understand it (such as with tongues). But getting believers their own spot on the 10 O'clock news speaking in tongues is not going to convince anyone, whether it is for-real or not because it is not a matter of the human intellect, but a spiritual matter to be spiritually discerned.

Strangely, this never happens and all we are left with are unsubstantiated claims from the likes of you.

Hey, don't take my word for it. Read the Bible. If you can prove the Bible's claims to be unsubstantiated I'll concede the point.

My advice, young Josh, is to lay off the Cool Aid.

Don't worry, I won't be 'Jones'-ing it anytime soon.

~Josh

 

[Imagican]

Ok,

for those that INSIST that 'unknown tongues' are ANYTHING BUT 'languages previously unknown to the speaker', show us the money. Show ONE spot, one concrete OFFERING in The Word that states that blubbering gibberish IS 'speaking in tongues'.

It seems that discussion in a logical manner cannot be condusive to those that insist upon this behavior. Now, let us go beyond logic and simply READ the word and see if we can FIND what exist concerning 'tongues'.

First, there is NO EVIDENCE of a 'tongue' BEING the 'voice of angels' as some have TRIED to contend. NO EVIDENCE whatsoever. This was simply an alagorical statement made by Paul that has NO hint of an 'actual language' or 'speaking'.

IF, for tongues to BE valid there MUST be an interpreter, how can ANY offer that tongues are an unintelligible gibberish? For there to BE an interpreter the 'tongues' MUST be an understandable language to THE INTERPRETER.

We HAVE the understanding offered so far as WHAT 'unknown tongues' ARE. The day of Pentacost, when tongues were first offered, explains that tongues were 'UNLEARNED LANGUAGES' spoken by those 'GIFTED' with the ability to speak in the language of OTHERS that were NON BELIEVERS so that they may HEAR of 'the good news'. Some did indeed believe the speakers to be speaking gibberish, for they DIDN'T understand the languages being spoken, (obviously the message wasn't FOR them), but there were OTHERS present that not ONLY understood the languages, but recognized the EXACT dialect. Therefore we CAN CONCLUDE that the 'tongues' being spoken WERE INDEED languages. The 'unknown' aspect was simply the FACT that those that spoke in 'tongues' had been GIFTED with the ability to communicate with others of DIFFERENT languages WITHOUT having to LEARN THEM. That IS the significance of being ABLE to 'speak in tongues'. A GIFT OF THE SPIRIT.

Note that Paul offers specific instruction concerning the USE of tongues IN THE CHURCH. One, two or NO MORE THAN THREE in a 'gathering', and by course, IN ORDER, this means ONE, then ANOTHER, then ANOTHER. NOT AT THE SAME TIME. MUST be an interpreter. Women CAN'T, in the Body, speak in tongues. ONLY as The Spirit GIVES utterance. And IF these stipulations are NOT met, HE who would 'speak in tongues' is to REMAIN SILENT IN THE CHURCH.

Now, SHOW me ANY evidence that 'tongues' are USED in this fashion, (instances where the 'tongues' being spoken REMAIN faithful to these CONDITIONS that we have been offered MUST exist in order for their to BE 'tongues').

And, we haven't even HIT on the next level of discussion of tongues so far as the Word offering that THEY WILL CEASE. For tongues were FOR a purpose. Once a PURPOSE is fulfilled, then many things are NO LONGER NEEDED. That means that anything offered to FULFILL a purpose would CEASE to exist ONCE the purpose IS FULFILLED.

What is the PURPOSE of tongues? Only THEN will we be ABLE to discern whether they truly exist, IN SPIRIT, or NOT TODAY.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Bad Rabbit]

To be sure, not just any person who can "make funny sounds" is speaking in the Holy Spirit with tongues. As I said before, it largely (doctrinally speaking - and as is mandated by Scripture for public speech in tongues), it must be interpreted else what is said cannot be validated. It takes some discernment to pick out fakes from the real. And often I have to pray about any supposed interpretation on tongues as well,

........ Only the Spirit of God can confirm a word's ultimate truth. If you do not have the Holy Spirit of God in you then there are no grounds from which you could meaure its truthfullness and genuineness.

Ah, it must be 'interpreted', and, of course, we have young Josh to do this for us as he can tell us if a person is either insane or apocryphal, or whether this twitching and howling believer is filled with the Holy Spirit or some other celestial stuffing.

Now, it is evident that you have an extraordinary high opinion of your own sagacity, but since you give us no evidence at all for why we should believe you, for the time being I am going to rely on a more down-to earth method of evaluating phenomena such as speaking in tongues.

I am very fond of that quaint American saying: If it looks like an histrionic imbecile and it caterwauls like an idiotic clod than it is probably a cretinous lunatic.

I may not have remembered that maxim exactly to the letter as I recall vaguely that there was a duck in there somewhere.

 

[Imagican]

You are indeed, a Bad Rabit.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Rick W]

Friendly reminder:

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

 

[Bad Rabbit]

Friendly reminder:

5 - Respect each other's opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Just to clarify,Rick, I was ridiculing the subject matter, i.e. people who claim to speak in tongues, and not the poster.

Regards,

B R