Clear up confusion about tongues!

[awaken]

Tongues discussion's are so difficult because it requires an honest respect for the "things of the Spirit", which Saint Paul said would appear as "foolishness", and impossible to know for the natural mind. He went on to say that these things can only be "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). These facts put us at a disadvantage because it's hard to communicate a spiritual truth using intellectual methods.

For some reason, the "tongues controversy" has a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us, including finger pointing and name-calling. Actually, this topic is very sacred and holy. I wish we could just focus on the positive.

Speaking in tongues is not a condition for salvation. We need to keep our spiritual priorities in order and avoid putting the Body of Christ in a state of war over this issue. Sadly, it's already in this condition--so it doesn't need any more help. Also, God's Word commands us not to be quarrelsome--and, if possible, to live peaceably with all men. I am reminded of this as I have read over other threads...so I am sorry and repent of adding to what displeases God.

Some Christians don't want anything to disturb the "status quo". Some of the worst persecution I've experienced to date came from both my spiritual family in the church and later from my natural family. As a Christian, I was both confused and hurt by this reaction. If the Word of God is our standard, why do we embrace only the parts that we agree with and reject the parts that tend to "upset" our traditions?

My goal is to allow Scripture to speak for itself and avoid "reading" my own meaning into the text. I will make comments for clarification.

If we throw it out because we don't think it should be there--how many other important doctrines will be recklessly placed into our "trash can of unessential doctrines for Christian living?"

I opened this up in other denominations because it is too one sided in Baptist only threads.

Why is the subject of tongues important?
One thing to consider...When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, He ushered in a whole new spiritual administration for the believer in Christ. It's not designed to be optional. Many of these things were not available under the previous dispensation of the Mosaic Law.

On the day of Pentecost God introduced something entirely new. The Spirit of Christ, the third person of the Trinity, initiates this change. We should at least have some knowledge about the nature of those changes.

 

[Revmitchell]

Tongues discussion's are so difficult because it requires an honest respect for the "things of the Spirit", which Saint Paul said would appear as "foolishness", and impossible to know for the natural mind. He went on to say that these things can only be "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). These facts put us at a disadvantage because it's hard to communicate a spiritual truth using intellectual methods.

Translation: If you do not agree with me you are not honest.

For some reason, the "tongues controversy" has a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us, including finger pointing and name-calling.

Which is what you just did.

Speaking in tongues is not a condition for salvation. We need to keep our spiritual priorities in order and avoid putting the Body of Christ in a state of war over this issue. Sadly, it's already in this condition--so it doesn't need any more help. Also, God's Word commands us not to be quarrelsome--and, if possible, to live peaceably with all men. I am reminded of this as I have read over other threads...so I am sorry and repent of adding to what displeases God.

Some Christians don't want anything to disturb the "status quo". Some of the worst persecution I've experienced to date came from both my spiritual family in the church and later from my natural family. As a Christian, I was both confused and hurt by this reaction. If the Word of God is our standard, why do we embrace only the parts that we agree with and reject the parts that tend to "upset" our traditions?

My goal is to allow Scripture to speak for itself and avoid "reading" my own meaning into the text. I will make comments for clarification.

If we throw it out because we don't think it should be there--how many other important doctrines will be recklessly placed into our "trash can of unessential doctrines for Christian living?"

I opened this up in other denominations because it is too one sided in Baptist only threads.

Why is the subject of tongues important?
One thing to consider...When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, He ushered in a whole new spiritual administration for the believer in Christ. It's not designed to be optional. Many of these things were not available under the previous dispensation of the Mosaic Law.

On the day of Pentecost God introduced something entirely new. The Spirit of Christ, the third person of the Trinity, initiates this change. We should at least have some knowledge about the nature of those changes.

tongues were the least of all the gifts and there is no reason to fight so hard for them except one wants to feed the flesh.

 

[DHK]

Tongues discussion's are so difficult because it requires an honest respect for the "things of the Spirit", which Saint Paul said would appear as "foolishness", and impossible to know for the natural mind. He went on to say that these things can only be "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). These facts put us at a disadvantage because it's hard to communicate a spiritual truth using intellectual methods.

If any have the natural mind are speaking foolishness it is those speaking in tongues today. Paul never encouraged the speaking of tongues--not once. No one was ever commanded to "seek" to speak in tongues.

For some reason, the "tongues controversy" has a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us, including finger pointing and name-calling. Actually, this topic is very sacred and holy. I wish we could just focus on the positive.

The tongues that are spoken today are not "sacred" but vile. They are not Biblical but anti-biblical. They have no Biblical reason or basis to be spoken, and most of all they are not "tongues" or languages at all. If you speak in "tongues" then please tell me what languages the Lord has miraculously given to you to speak in? What are they? Who has translated for you? What did he say they were? Surely someone recognized them, or they are of no value whatsoever. For Paul's entire emphasis in 1Cor.14 was on understanding. If one could not be understood, then it was all vanity.

Speaking in tongues is not a condition for salvation. We need to keep our spiritual priorities in order and avoid putting the Body of Christ in a state of war over this issue. Sadly, it's already in this condition--so it doesn't need any more help. Also, God's Word commands us not to be quarrelsome--and, if possible, to live peaceably with all men. I am reminded of this as I have read over other threads...so I am sorry and repent of adding to what displeases God.

Some Christians don't want anything to disturb the "status quo". Some of the worst persecution I've experienced to date came from both my spiritual family in the church and later from my natural family. As a Christian, I was both confused and hurt by this reaction. If the Word of God is our standard, why do we embrace only the parts that we agree with and reject the parts that tend to "upset" our traditions?

Speaking in tongues, the phenomena you see today, is not a tradition. It is an ungodly practice that started up in 1905, that had not been practiced before that time for 1900 years. One can hardly call that a tradition. It is a doctrine that goes straight against the Bible.

My goal is to allow Scripture to speak for itself and avoid "reading" my own meaning into the text. I will make comments for clarification.

If we throw it out because we don't think it should be there--how many other important doctrines will be recklessly placed into our "trash can of unessential doctrines for Christian living?"

It was only "important" in the first century when revelation was still needed. Now that revelation is complete we don't need revelatory gifts any longer (mentioned in 1Cor.13:8). As promised they would all cease, and they did, when the Bible was completed with the completion of the Book of Revelation near the end of the first century.

I opened this up in other denominations because it is too one sided in Baptist only threads.

Why is the subject of tongues important?

Obviously it is more important to some than to others.
It is important because it is a doctrine that is deceiving many.

One thing to consider...When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, He ushered in a whole new spiritual administration for the believer in Christ. It's not designed to be optional. Many of these things were not available under the previous dispensation of the Mosaic Law.

That doesn't mean that they are all available now either. How many people do you see that can heal thousands like Peter did in Acts 5:16? They were all healed--no exceptions.

On the day of Pentecost God introduced something entirely new. The Spirit of Christ, the third person of the Trinity, initiates this change. We should at least have some knowledge about the nature of those changes.

The Word of God tells us what those changes were. They weren't the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The major change was that believers became to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit on the day of their salvation.

 

[Bob Hope]

Tongues discussion's are so difficult because it requires an honest respect for the "things of the Spirit", which Saint Paul said would appear as "foolishness", and impossible to know for the natural mind. He went on to say that these things can only be "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). These facts put us at a disadvantage because it's hard to communicate a spiritual truth using intellectual methods.

For some reason, the "tongues controversy" has a tendency to bring out the worst in all of us, including finger pointing and name-calling. Actually, this topic is very sacred and holy. I wish we could just focus on the positive.

Speaking in tongues is not a condition for salvation. We need to keep our spiritual priorities in order and avoid putting the Body of Christ in a state of war over this issue. Sadly, it's already in this condition--so it doesn't need any more help. Also, God's Word commands us not to be quarrelsome--and, if possible, to live peaceably with all men. I am reminded of this as I have read over other threads...so I am sorry and repent of adding to what displeases God.

Some Christians don't want anything to disturb the "status quo". Some of the worst persecution I've experienced to date came from both my spiritual family in the church and later from my natural family. As a Christian, I was both confused and hurt by this reaction. If the Word of God is our standard, why do we embrace only the parts that we agree with and reject the parts that tend to "upset" our traditions?

My goal is to allow Scripture to speak for itself and avoid "reading" my own meaning into the text. I will make comments for clarification.

If we throw it out because we don't think it should be there--how many other important doctrines will be recklessly placed into our "trash can of unessential doctrines for Christian living?"

I opened this up in other denominations because it is too one sided in Baptist only threads.

Why is the subject of tongues important?
One thing to consider...When the Holy Spirit arrived on the day of Pentecost, He ushered in a whole new spiritual administration for the believer in Christ. It's not designed to be optional. Many of these things were not available under the previous dispensation of the Mosaic Law.

On the day of Pentecost God introduced something entirely new. The Spirit of Christ, the third person of the Trinity, initiates this change. We should at least have some knowledge about the nature of those changes.

No tongues.

 

[Jerome]

I have always said that tongues is a real language.

I think a lot of confusion could be cleared up if you would describe the sounds you make in detail.

Would you please transcribe for us a sentence or two? Thanks.

 

[The Biblicist]

Tongues discussion's are so difficult because it requires an honest respect for the "things of the Spirit", which Saint Paul said would appear as "foolishness", and impossible to know for the natural mind. He went on to say that these things can only be "spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). These facts put us at a disadvantage because it's hard to communicate a spiritual truth using intellectual methods.

The Word of God has been given to us to test supernatural experiences (Isa. 8:19-20) whether they are of God or not. We are explicitly told NOT TO BELIEVE those who claim to speak by direction of God (prophets - 1 Jn. 4:1) but to put them to the test.

The Pentecostal gift of "tongues" is spelled out three distinct ways so that no one can mistake exactly what it was. It was not some esctatic unknowable utterances of angels or men but the ability without training to speak in known human dialects that was perfectly understood by those whose native born language was being spoken (Acts 2:6-11).

Paul in the very context of spiritual gifts clearly and unmistakenly tells his readers that just like the gift of prophet, the gift of tongues is not given to all Christians (1 Cor. 12:29-30).

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are necessary for salvation are wrong.

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are necessary for spirituality are wrong.

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are the evidence of a baptism in the Spirit which is necessary for spiritual growth is wrong!

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says that "prayer" tongues give ability to pray "in the Spirit" is wrong as the only other alternative is to pray "in the flesh" which is evil.

Paul uses the plural for "tongues" in this text in a context of CHURCH use (vv. 12-28; 14:1-41). The same plural term was used on the day of Pentecost. The same plural "tongues" included with "prophets" here is the same plural "tongues" compared to prophets and prophecy in chapter 14. So the silly argument that the plural in 1 Cor. 12:29 refers to another kind of tongues is exposed as simply poor exegesis and perversion of the scriptural context.

This whole Tongue movement is literally full of false doctrines, false apostles, false prophets, confusion, chaos and God the Holy Spirit is not the author of such and yet not one aspect in Christendom that teaches this doctrine and practice is without such.

 

[awaken]

Most of you.. I have heard the same responses over and over...those I will not address. But the ones that have a scripture to base your belief upon I will! Or a new debate about tongues.

tongues were the least of all the gifts and there is no reason to fight so hard for them except one wants to feed the flesh.

It's important to keep this topic in its proper place. Paul seems to suggest that tongues are "the lesser" of the gifts of the Spirit. Lets assume this to be true. An examination of Paul's comments shows that he said this because the Corinthians were placing an unbiblical emphasis on its use. He encouraged the Corinthians to desire to prophesy, because the whole church could be edified through this gift. Yet, Paul's comments are not a rejection of tongues. He was only saying that prophesying is a better gift. Some religious critics treat the New Testament practice of prophesying with the same disdain as they do tongues. They only pretend to care about it because it makes tongues look less favorable. Saint Paul told the believers at Corinth:

"But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Cor 12:31)

Some in the church exaggerate the importance of tongues beyond the Scriptural standard. A few groups wrongly believe it's a condition for salvation. On the other side, some argue that because it's considered a "lesser" gift--we should ignore it or throw it out because God doesn't use it and doesn't care about it. Both of these positions represent serious error. Tongues may be a lesser gift--but when we see what God's Word says about it--even God's lesser gifts are extremely precious and valuable to the modern day believer.

 

[awaken]

I think a lot of confusion could be cleared up if you would describe the sounds you make in detail.

Would you please transcribe for us a sentence or two? Thanks.

ANd this will prove what?

 

[Revmitchell]

Some in the church exaggerate the importance of tongues beyond the Scriptural standard.

Like you do here on this board.

 

[awaken]

The Word of God has been given to us to test supernatural experiences (Isa. 8:19-20) whether they are of God or not. We are explicitly told NOT TO BELIEVE those who claim to speak by direction of God (prophets - 1 Jn. 4:1) but to put them to the test.

The Pentecostal gift of "tongues" is spelled out three distinct ways so that no one can mistake exactly what it was. It was not some esctatic unknowable utterances of angels or men but the ability without training to speak in known human dialects that was perfectly understood by those whose native born language was being spoken (Acts 2:6-11).

Paul in the very context of spiritual gifts clearly and unmistakenly tells his readers that just like the gift of prophet, the gift of tongues is not given to all Christians (1 Cor. 12:29-30).

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are necessary for salvation are wrong.

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are necessary for spirituality are wrong.

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are the evidence of a baptism in the Spirit which is necessary for spiritual growth is wrong!

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says that "prayer" tongues give ability to pray "in the Spirit" is wrong as the only other alternative is to pray "in the flesh" which is evil.

Paul uses the plural for "tongues" in this text in a context of CHURCH use (vv. 12-28; 14:1-41). The same plural term was used on the day of Pentecost. The same plural "tongues" included with "prophets" here is the same plural "tongues" compared to prophets and prophecy in chapter 14. So the silly argument that the plural in 1 Cor. 12:29 refers to another kind of tongues is exposed as simply poor exegesis and perversion of the scriptural context.

This whole Tongue movement is literally full of false doctrines, false apostles, false prophets, confusion, chaos and God the Holy Spirit is not the author of such and yet not one aspect in Christendom that teaches this doctrine and practice is without such.

We also need to beware of satan devices to keep us in the dark concerning tongues!
Paul said we should not be ignorant of spiritual things! Most of the ones that taught me earlier that tongues did not exist today could not even tell me the benefits of it when they thought it did exist.

 

[awaken]

Like you do here on this board.

I defend it mostly. Others speak on other subjects just as much!

 

[awaken]

No tongues.

And your scripture to back this up?

 

[annsni]

I think a lot of confusion could be cleared up if you would describe the sounds you make in detail.

Would you please transcribe for us a sentence or two? Thanks.

If it were Biblical tongues, this question could be answered.

 

[The Biblicist]

Most of you.. I have heard the same responses over and over...those I will not address.

Because you cannot address them. I have yet to read anyone address the responses I gave and I have given them to several that hold your view and they too never address them.

It's important to keep this topic in its proper place. Paul seems to suggest that tongues are "the lesser" of the gifts of the Spirit. Lets assume this to be true. An examination of Paul's comments shows that he said this because the Corinthians were placing an unbiblical emphasis on its use. He encouraged the Corinthians to desire to prophesy, because the whole church could be edified through this gift. Yet, Paul's comments are not a rejection of tongues. He was only saying that prophesying is a better gift. Some religious critics treat the New Testament practice of prophesying with the same disdain as they do tongues. They only pretend to care about it because it makes tongues look less favorable. Saint Paul told the believers at Corinth:

"But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way." (1 Cor 12:31)

Do you realize that the Greek text can be equally translated "You are coveting earnestly the best gifts; but shew I unto you a more excellent way" the way of love! The Greek terms can be translated an indicative as much as an imperative mode and only context determines which. The indicative mode is what the preceding and following context SCREAMS for:

He just taught them that it was not according to their will but according to the will of the Spirit unto whom gets what gifts (v. 11).

He just taught them that the Spirit of God sets them in the church as He pleases not how they please (v. 18)

He just taught them that God does not give all gifts to all Christians (vv. 29-30) and yet even you admit they were coveting the more showy gifts.

The contrast is the WAY OF LOVE in chapter 13 where love does not SEEKETH HER OWN but seeketh the will of God and to SERVE OTHERS.

Do you really want to understand 1 Corinthians 14?

 

[awaken]

If it were Biblical tongues, this question could be answered.

So are you saying that if one could type in the language they are speaking it would prove whether it is biblical or not? I could type in any language copy and paste it even...what would this prove?

 

[annsni]

So are you saying that if one could type in the language they are speaking it would prove whether it is biblical or not? I could type in any language copy and paste it even...what would this prove?

No - be truthful. If you are deceptive, that is a sign of your heart.

Instead, post what was said and the interpretation.

 

[The Biblicist]

So are you saying that if one could type in the language they are speaking it would prove whether it is biblical or not? I could type in any language copy and paste it even...what would this prove?

I have listened to Hindu's speak ectastically and I have listened to Pentecostals (first hand) speak many times and there is no audible differences, no visible differences and no physical differences as both fall on the ground (slain in the spirit) and both have GLAZED eyes.

 

[awaken]

The Word of God has been given to us to test supernatural experiences (Isa. 8:19-20) whether they are of God or not. We are explicitly told NOT TO BELIEVE those who claim to speak by direction of God (prophets - 1 Jn. 4:1) but to put them to the test.

The Pentecostal gift of "tongues" is spelled out three distinct ways so that no one can mistake exactly what it was. It was not some esctatic unknowable utterances of angels or men but the ability without training to speak in known human dialects that was perfectly understood by those whose native born language was being spoken (Acts 2:6-11).

I agree that tongues was a language that could be understood by someone else other than the one speaking it!

Paul in the very context of spiritual gifts clearly and unmistakenly tells his readers that just like the gift of prophet, the gift of tongues is not given to all Christians (1 Cor. 12:29-30).

These are ministries in the church..

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are necessary for salvation are wrong.

The Bible does not teach that it is necessary for salvation.

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are necessary for spirituality are wrong.

THe Bible does not teach they are for the spiritually mature. 1 Cor. were very carnal!

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says they are the evidence of a baptism in the Spirit which is necessary for spiritual growth is wrong!

Can you defend this with scriptures?

Hence, any "Christian" religion that says that "prayer" tongues give ability to pray "in the Spirit" is wrong as the only other alternative is to pray "in the flesh" which is evil.

Paul says "pray in the spirit" and "pray with understanding"..two different prayers. He does not mention the other alternative as "in the flesh"..

Paul uses the plural for "tongues" in this text in a context of CHURCH use (vv. 12-28; 14:1-41). The same plural term was used on the day of Pentecost. The same plural "tongues" included with "prophets" here is the same plural "tongues" compared to prophets and prophecy in chapter 14. So the silly argument that the plural in 1 Cor. 12:29 refers to another kind of tongues is exposed as simply poor exegesis and perversion of the scriptural context.

This whole Tongue movement is literally full of false doctrines, false apostles, false prophets, confusion, chaos and God the Holy Spirit is not the author of such and yet not one aspect in Christendom that teaches this doctrine and practice is without such.

So we need to stick to what the Bible says and not another denomination.

 

[awaken]

I have listened to Hindu's speak ectastically and I have listened to Pentecostals (first hand) speak many times and there is no audible differences, no visible differences and no physical differences as both fall on the ground (slain in the spirit) and both have GLAZED eyes.

THis I have never witnessed...I am not Pentecostal and I have never heard Hindu's speak ectastically.

 

[awaken]

No - be truthful. If you are deceptive, that is a sign of your heart.

Instead, post what was said and the interpretation.

THat was the truth! It will prove nothing! It will not help your unbelief concerning tongues!