-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Gift of tongues?
- Thread starter Mikey
- Start date
Reformed1689
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that it necessarily is. I'm trying to challenge you to do better than just saying "that is what I was taught." There are at least three things (at the time) that were yet to come that will be perfect. 1. The completion of Scripture. 2. The second coming of Christ. 3. The perfect eternal Kingdom of God.
So since there are/were multiple perfect things that were yet to come, you have to be able to show with certainty that 1 Corinthians 13 is talking about Scripture and why it is talking about Scripture. Just saying "that is what I was taught" doesn't cut it.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
The Baptism with the Holy Spirit provided fragments of God’s word through tongues and prophecy until the New Testament canon became complete. How do we know this? Paul says scripture thoroughly equips us 2 Timothy 3:17. Paul said tongues and prophecy provided only partial knowledge 1 Corinthians 13:9. So it makes sense scripture replaced them when completed.
mailmandan
Active Member
I was recently in a conversation with someone who attends a fanatical Pentecostal church (not saying that all Pentecostal churches are fanatical) who said, and I quote: "All disciples are born again (converted) by water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism with the Bible evidence of speaking in tongues. No tongues, no Holy Spirit." Of course that is a false teaching which abuses the spiritual gift of tongues. Not all speak in tongues. (1 Corinthians 12:28-30)
I've also heard Oneness Pentecostals teach that if you were not water baptized 'in Jesus name only' (baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an invalid baptism according to them) and have not spoken in tongues, then you won't be saved. Such people are teaching a "different" gospel.
I've also heard Oneness Pentecostals teach that if you were not water baptized 'in Jesus name only' (baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is an invalid baptism according to them) and have not spoken in tongues, then you won't be saved. Such people are teaching a "different" gospel.
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Five reasons why tongues are not valid today.
1) The speaker was edified and needed to interpret so the others could understand and be edified. Understanding what was being said edified. So the speaker knew what they were saying. Today's tongue speakers haven't a clue about what they are saying.
2) Tongues only came through an apostle's hands apart from the two outpourings. The Last apostle died in the first century.
3) Tongues were unexpected and spontaneous. Today people coach each other as they learn to mimic the gift.
4) If tongues were genuine they would involve the church. Not just a few seedy sects dogged by scandal whose originators were also dogged by scandal.
5) The early Christians who had experience with the original gift condemned the Montanist sect for heresy after they claimed to have the gift.
1) The speaker was edified and needed to interpret so the others could understand and be edified. Understanding what was being said edified. So the speaker knew what they were saying. Today's tongue speakers haven't a clue about what they are saying.
2) Tongues only came through an apostle's hands apart from the two outpourings. The Last apostle died in the first century.
3) Tongues were unexpected and spontaneous. Today people coach each other as they learn to mimic the gift.
4) If tongues were genuine they would involve the church. Not just a few seedy sects dogged by scandal whose originators were also dogged by scandal.
5) The early Christians who had experience with the original gift condemned the Montanist sect for heresy after they claimed to have the gift.
Do you know of anything more perfect than Christ? I don't. Which Bible could be perfect if it's scripture.As little as a few tears ago I believed the KJV was perfect however I've come to realize that anything that man does is not perfect because man does not have perfection with in him. Man may have the Holy Spirit in him yet he still sins.. To me Perfection has to have been created by a perfect being. This is speculation also because none of us really know for sure.
MB
1689Dave
Well-Known Member
Paul says scripture thoroughly equips us 2 Timothy 3:17. Paul said tongues and prophecy provided only partial knowledge 1 Corinthians 13:9.
Perhaps a pun regarding the gift of gab we sometimes talk about in our culture.
But interestingly, there was a gift of both tongues and ears extant during NT times—that is the gift of foreign languages and the gift of interpretation which seemed to be manifest during Peter's Acts 2 sermon, when listeners were able to hear Peter in their own language.
These 7 ears are MUCH BETTER than that
Revelation 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
Revelation 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
Revelation 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
Revelation 3:6 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
Revelation 3:13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
Revelation 3:22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches...
If I don't already have them then I WANT THEM!
Tongues, or xenoglossy, is the speaking of intelligible languages by someone who does not under ordinary means have proficiency in that language.
1 Corinthians 14 and Acts 2 are the key biblical passages on tongues.
Scripture makes plain tongues should be sought to be interpreted to edify the church. If no interpretation is available, then tongues are not to be spoken in the church assembly. Tongues are a sign and wonder aimed at unbelievers, not believers unless the languages are interpreted. Tongues were spoken by individuals without interpretation. This exercises the spirit of the believer, but does not fully utilize the mind of the believer, since what is spoken is a mystery.
I believe xenoglossy is still around, but is very rare. I know anecdotes from people that I trust combined with my own anecdotes. I am looking for evidence of tongues in church history, it is scant but I have some leads.
Of course, Pentecostal gibberish is generally repetitive and can sound like Shaka Baba Shaka Baba Ramata. It is not real language unless it lines up with a spoken or dead language. Speaking tongues can be done by individuals without interpretation, this is biblical if it is a real language being spoken, not gibberish.
How wonderful, as it is so very rare, that you have your own anecdotes of this occurring!
Was it you doing the speaking, or someone else?
How did you determine what language it was each time?
I did the speaking after doubting xenoglossy as active at all. I began to assume all tongues after the apostles was Satanic. I did a few recordings. I was shocked and scanned the bible on how to identify and handle tongues. I googled the words, since it sounded like a romance language. Words kept coming back translated in latin. That got me because I had studied Latin in high school, but I had forgotten almost everything. Of course speaking It barely happened. Because it happened when I questioned xenoglossy as active at all, it is quite like some other anecdotes I know from others. I am talking to a conservative Christian apologist on what it is and how to use it based on the Word. I am currently translating it, it seems to be a hyperbole 1 minute and 16 seconds long.
Oh, you can upload files here. I didn't know that. Yeah I can do that soon.
OK, first of all the theology on the use of tongues can be found in post 52 of this thread. It is of paramount importance since Pentecostals and Charismatics neither typically have the gift or use it biblicaly. This understanding was arrived at through my first discussion with the Christian apologist, a cautious continuationist, I am speaking to.
The recording is not attaching it is an mp4 audio file. How do I make it a format accepted by this site?
I should warn you I still speak in Latin and look up the words, based on my tenuous grasp of things, it appears this is a message in parts being given over time.
I have also encountered a new language with glottal stops.
The music in my recordings just comes out of me, I don't try to make original tunes. It seems these utterances are meant to be musical.
Today I received my first "easy" partial sentence to translate.
"In a non est"
Google translate says: "It is not on a"
Using my old high school materials it appears to read, given wonky Latin sentence structure: "Alas! (a) He is (Est) not (non) in (In)"
I don't know which one is more accurate. Translating languages is hard. There are a few different words with various meanings that are simply 'a,' a few meanings to "non," a few ways to do the subject of 'est' which is a verb, and three definitions for "In."
--I edited it 5 minutes later because I should have been way more careful. I meant "In a non est" not "In non a est." I am very sorry for my mistake, in either case it translates but the meaning is different.
The recording is not attaching it is an mp4 audio file. How do I make it a format accepted by this site?
I should warn you I still speak in Latin and look up the words, based on my tenuous grasp of things, it appears this is a message in parts being given over time.
I have also encountered a new language with glottal stops.
The music in my recordings just comes out of me, I don't try to make original tunes. It seems these utterances are meant to be musical.
Today I received my first "easy" partial sentence to translate.
"In a non est"
Google translate says: "It is not on a"
Using my old high school materials it appears to read, given wonky Latin sentence structure: "Alas! (a) He is (Est) not (non) in (In)"
I don't know which one is more accurate. Translating languages is hard. There are a few different words with various meanings that are simply 'a,' a few meanings to "non," a few ways to do the subject of 'est' which is a verb, and three definitions for "In."
--I edited it 5 minutes later because I should have been way more careful. I meant "In a non est" not "In non a est." I am very sorry for my mistake, in either case it translates but the meaning is different.
Last edited:
I never said that they ceased or that they still exist I don't really know. I do not believe anyone else does either.
MB
If the tongues are not in relation to the sharing of the gospel then its not from the spiritual gift from God and its not biblical.
Here is a link to a post I am writing up for a blog I plan to start. It has a link to my sample of tongues. My hope is to reach unbelievers with this to get in a word edge wise for the Gospel. I also hope to convince believers in the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), who are so lost in crazy stuff, of the reality of things. My heart breaks for those that may be apostates.
Steven Yeadon
Steven Yeadon