Speaking in tongues?

[Marcia]

A lot of people are also unaware that speaking in tongues that are gibberish (glossolalia) is found in non-Christian religions when people are in ecstatic states. This is even more reason, imo, to believe that speaking in tongues in the early church was speaking in foreign languages, not gibberish.

 

[Jim1999]

So-called speaking in tongues usually connects with those religions who base their results on "feelings" rather than on "promises" of God. I am saved because I feel saved, or I am saved regardless of my emotion. That is the difference.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[John Toppass]

Because a gift given through the Holy Spirit is depicted in the NT as something someone has and does not lose. It's not just something that happens once.

Every believer has at least one gift given by God through the Holy Spirit. Do you think these gifts are taken away? Nowhere does it say a gift is taken away from a believer. It talks about how you should serve God and the body of Christ with your gifts.

I think the burden is on you to show these gifts are given to a believer and then taken away, if that's what you think.

What makes you think that if a gift was used only once that it was taken away? Is there any Scripture stating how often gifts are used?

In the case of tongues, could it be that it was only need once since there are so many other ways of communicating the Word?

 

[Marcia]

What makes you think that if a gift was used only once that it was taken away? Is there any Scripture stating how often gifts are used?

In the case of tongues, could it be that it was only need once since there are so many other ways of communicating the Word?

I don't think a gift was taken away! I said the opposite! You are the one who asked me why I thought the gifts were ongoing.

Read 1 Cor 12.

I cannot prove that someone had a gift just once, but in the context of where all the gifts are mentioned, it is reasonable to conclude that people had them on an ongoing basis.

God can effect a miracle today but this does not mean it is a gift. Someone may have a talent, but that is not necessarily a gift as listed in the NT.

The gifts to believers were given for specific purposes as listed in scripture. A one time event when someone speaks miraculously in a foreign language and never again does not match up the context of the NT on gifts.

I said nothing unusual - you seem to be jumping on this for some reason.

 

[John Toppass]

I don't think a gift was taken away! I said the opposite! You are the one who asked me why I thought the gifts were ongoing.

Read 1 Cor 12.

I cannot prove that someone had a gift just once, but in the context of where all the gifts are mentioned, it is reasonable to conclude that people had them on an ongoing basis.

God can effect a miracle today but this does not mean it is a gift. Someone may have a talent, but that is not necessarily a gift as listed in the NT.

The gifts to believers were given for specific purposes as listed in scripture. A one time event when someone speaks miraculously in a foreign language and never again does not match up the context of the NT on gifts.

I said nothing unusual - you seem to be jumping on this for some reason.

I apoligize, I thought when you said "Because a gift given through the Holy Spirit is depicted in the NT as something someone has and does not lose. It's not just something that happens once." You were implying that.

I did not mean to offend you, this happen with you quite abit with various members. Most are not disagreeing just asking why you believe that. It has been nice talking to you.

I have read 1 Cor. 12 and 13&14 that is why I wondered why you were saying that gifts must be used multiple times because I read nothing at all that says that.

 

[Marcia]

I apoligize, I thought when you said "Because a gift given through the Holy Spirit is depicted in the NT as something someone has and does not lose. It's not just something that happens once." You were implying that.

I did not mean to offend you, this happen with you quite abit with various members. Most are not disagreeing just asking why you believe that. It has been nice talking to you.

I have read 1 Cor. 12 and 13&14 that is why I wondered why you were saying that gifts must be used multiple times because I read nothing at all that says that.

When you asked me why I think a gift had to be ongoing, it was because I had referenced the story you or someone told on this thread and I was trying to show there could be a difference between a gift as described in the NT and a one-time miraculous event. Being able to speak in a foreign language all of a sudden and then never doing it again (which is true in 2 stories I've heard) does not sound like a gift as depicted in the NT.

So, right, I said that a gift is not something that just happens once. I think the context of the NT passages on gifts implies it is ongoing. It is not that I think they must be used multiple times, but what kind of gift is it if one only uses it once? Remember this would apply to all of them - the gift of service (helps), teaching, mercy, discernment, administration, etc. Would someone have a gift to teach one time? To help one time? To be merciful only once? To discern one time? Same with tongues - why would it be one time only?

It's totally reasonable to conclude these gifts were ongoing in the life of the believer who had them.

 

[John Toppass]

When you asked me why I think a gift had to be ongoing, it was because I had referenced the story you or someone told on this thread and I was trying to show there could be a difference between a gift as described in the NT and a one-time miraculous event. Being able to speak in a foreign language all of a sudden and then never doing it again (which is true in 2 stories I've heard) does not sound like a gift as depicted in the NT.

So, right, I said that a gift is not something that just happens once. I think the context of the NT passages on gifts implies it is ongoing. It is not that I think they must be used multiple times, but what kind of gift is it if one only uses it once? Remember this would apply to all of them - the gift of service (helps), teaching, mercy, discernment, administration, etc. Would someone have a gift to teach one time? To help one time? To be merciful only once? To discern one time? Same with tongues - why would it be one time only?

It's totally reasonable to conclude these gifts were ongoing in the life of the believer who had them.

I thought we were talking about gifts of tongues. Yes, I believe that if the gift of tongues were needed only once then that is all it would be used. The bible does not imply that this not so. I, myself, have never witnessed the gift of tongues in the fashion that Paul says it should appear so I do not think the few times I have been in a Pentecostal service where many people at once were speaking in tongues was of God. There was much confusion.

 

[Tom Butler]

John the Baptists ministry was before believers were indwelt with th gift of the Spirit, so we cannot put him in the same class as Martin Luther, Billy Graham, or the others. It is true that we don't have any record of any of these men recieving the gift of tongues, but that in itself does not mean it no longer exists. Maybe your pastors and fellow church members never had it because there was never a need for it in your church, as there has never been a need for it in mine. Paul spent more time focusing on it's misuse because its misuse was a big problem within the Corinthian church. The Corinthians viewed the gift of tongues so highly that it had become a source of pride for them, and had become detrimental to the furtherance of the gospel. There is also no doubt that you have heard charismatics supposedly speaking in tongues without an interpreter. I personally don't believe that what we hear from these charismatics is the Biblical gift of tongues, since it is not a known language used to communicate with a person who does not speak our language. But, let's just say for a moment, for the sake of proving a point, that what these charismatics do is the Biblical gift of tongues. Misuse by not having one to interpret would not make the gift invalid. If that were the case, there would have been no need for Paul to address the need of an interpreter. The Corinthians had a true gift given to them from the Holy Spirit. They misused that gift, but they had it nonetheless, and it was still from the Holy Spirit. So, while all of the points you made may very well be true, none of them show that the gift of tongues doesn't exist.

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while in the womb, and obviously filled with the Spirit afterward. Filled and indwelt sound like the same thing to me.

With at least two different definitions of tongues, we have to be sure that others know which definition we're using. In my comment, I was using the charismatic definition, which is "ecstatic utterance," in which the speaker has no idea what he's saying. I think Paul, aware of the pagan tongues, insisted that somebody interpret, to distinguish the utterance from the pagan practice.


The Acts 2 definition, in my view is that the tongues were known languages. Whether the miracle was in the speaking or the hearing is beside the point. Those who heard understood in their own language.

I join Tiny Tim in his evaluation of tongues. As a general rule, they're not operative today. But God may give them as an ability wherever he deems it necessary so someone can hear the gospel.

 

[John Toppass]

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while in the womb, and obviously filled with the Spirit afterward. Filled and indwelt sound like the same thing to me.

With at least two different definitions of tongues, we have to be sure that others know which definition we're using. In my comment, I was using the charismatic definition, which is "ecstatic utterance," in which the speaker has no idea what he's saying. I think Paul, aware of the pagan tongues, insisted that somebody interpret, to distinguish the utterance from the pagan practice.


The Acts 2 definition, in my view is that the tongues were known languages. Whether the miracle was in the speaking or the hearing is beside the point. Those who heard understood in their own language.

I join Tiny Tim in his evaluation of tongues. As a general rule, they're not operative today. But God may give them as an ability wherever he deems it necessary so someone can hear the gospel.

AMEN Brother

 

[Jon-Marc]

On the day of Pentecost, God gave to the disciples the ability to speak in the many different languages of the people of that time. Acts 2:6-11 tells how the unlearned disciples spoke in the languages of the people, and that they were all amazed at hearing the gospel in their own language--not in some unknown tongue that would mean nothing to them.

They didn't have the written word of God at that time--except maybe for whatever Old Testament scripture they may have had, but they had no written words about the birth of the Son of God and the future events as we have now.

Tongues (known languages) were a sign to the unbelievers. They are no longer necessary since we now have the written, inspired word of God for all to read and hear. Some churches even make speaking in tongues a requirement for salvation, and that is just plain WRONG.

Tongues are also seldom (if ever) done correctly. For one thing, there HAS to be an interpreter. Otherwise, they must remain silent in the church to avoid confusion. "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be two, or at the most by three, and that by course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God." 1 Cor. 14:27,28

So-called "tongues" are more often than not done for the edifying of the speaker only. He/she is seeking praise and admiration of others and wants to appear to be more spiritual than others. One time in a Pentecostal church, everyone (except me) started speaking all kinds of gibberish (that's what it sounded like to me). No one was interpreting any of it, and I doubt that anyone could have done so. One woman near me kept repeating over and over something that sounded like "Ah ditty", in an obvious effort to appear as spiritual as the rest of the people hoped they sounded.

I was very uncomfortable and wanted to leave, but, unfortunately, I was there as someone's guest. I'm sure they wouldn't have noticed if I had driven myself there and just left. They were all too wrapped in in themselves and trying to outdo everyone else in sounding spiritual.

 

[mima]

Speaking in tongues.

The doubters will have a heyday with this posting!


While lying in bed this morning praying I was considering why some have the gift of tongues and some do not have the gift of tongues. When the Lord spoke to my spirit and said," the gift of tongues is not given to some because of the blindness of "denominational tradition"
---mima on 2/11/09

 

[Todd W. White]

Excellent post, Jon-Marc!

 

[Todd W. White]

Amen, Bro. Jim!

You wrote:

So-called speaking in tongues usually connects with those religions who base their results on "feelings" rather than on "promises" of God. I am saved because I feel saved, or I am saved regardless of my emotion. That is the difference.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I still think speaking in "tounges" and other activities associated as particularily Pentecostal or Charasmatic are excuses to obtain a eupohoria through repetatively blabbing nonsense or mantricly singing a chorus causing hyperventalation (lack of oxygen to the brain much like alchohol) and a feeling of lightness people mistakenly call the Holy Spirit which is why many pass out (slain in the spirit) feel free to spasm sporatically (electrified by the spirit or on fire) and a multitude of other things that really have a medical explination rather than a spiritual one. When the Euphoric feeling arises its called "having church" with lots of screaming etc....

That's not what Paul was talking about.

 

[Marcia]

I thought we were talking about gifts of tongues. Yes, I believe that if the gift of tongues were needed only once then that is all it would be used. The bible does not imply that this not so. I, myself, have never witnessed the gift of tongues in the fashion that Paul says it should appear so I do not think the few times I have been in a Pentecostal service where many people at once were speaking in tongues was of God. There was much confusion.

I was not just speaking of the gift of tongues, but of the stories recounted here. I was saying that those appeared to be God performing a miracle, but were not the gift of tongues (since the event happened just once). A gift and a miracle are not the same thing.

Since the gifts were given and expected to be used, it is only rational to conclude that the gifts were ongoing and not used just once. I don't seem to be able to communicate this point to you.

 

[Marcia]

John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit while in the womb, and obviously filled with the Spirit afterward. Filled and indwelt sound like the same thing to me.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this part. I think John, as the last OT prophet, was given the Holy Spirit for periods of time but there was no indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers until after Pentecost.

Jesus said He had to leave in order for the "Comforter" to come. So John could not be indwelt by the Holy Spirit as believers are, but he could be given the Holy Spirit as the OT prophets were.

 

[Marcia]

The doubters will have a heyday with this posting!


While lying in bed this morning praying I was considering why some have the gift of tongues and some do not have the gift of tongues. When the Lord spoke to my spirit and said," the gift of tongues is not given to some because of the blindness of "denominational tradition"
---mima on 2/11/09

Sorry, but I do not think the Lord said this.

 

[Todd W. White]

I agree, Marcia.

Extra-biblical "revelation" (I'm speaking of something that is purported to be as authoritative as the Bible) is not of God - the next revealing of the Word will be THE Word, Jesus Christ!

 

[Jerome]

Worried and upset that all Christians don't speak in tongues?
Try reading the Bible.

I Cor. 12:29-30
Are all apostles? . . . do all speak with tongues?

 

[dcorbett]

I'll admit I don't have all the answers when it comes to tongues. There are parts of the 1 Corinthians passage that confuse me as well. For instance, Paul said he spoke in the tongues of men and of angels. What are the tongues of angels he spoke of?

Paul didn't say he did it, he said if he did it, he would be like.......that is what "though" means. Kinda like saying - "though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool"

Tongues was nothing more than God spreading the gospel during the transitional book of Acts. "Tongues" are other languages, not the gibberish you hear people spouting that makes absolutely no sense.