DHK wrote,
**The gift of tongues was given to the whole church, not to just
**individual members for their own private (selfish) use. Yes,
**it should be forbidden for such purposes. Actually the modern
**day practice of tongues should be forbidden completely because
**it is not a Biblical gift, and ceased by the end of the first
**century. What goes on today is not of the Holy Spirit at all.
**Jesus taught to "pray in secret." He never taught to pray in
**tongues in secret.
1. The Bible doesn't teach the gift ceased.
2. The Bible commands 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.'
3. If the reasons praying in tongues in private was forbidden (in your opinion) is because it was 'selfish', then why isn't all private prayer forbidden.
In your response to Tamborine Lady, you say,
**Keeping in the context of tongues, I believe that many were
**not saying Jesus is the Lord, and couldn't say that Jesus is
**the Lord, for they were speaking in another tongue--a tongue
**from the devil. They were demon possessed. They were, no doubt
**praising Satan and not God. They could not say Jesus is the
**Lord, because the demon dwelling within wouuld not allow them
**to. They were speaking by another spirit.
This is just your opinion. The verse about not cursing the Lord Jesus doesn't specify tongues. In fact, if someone cursed Christ in tongues, it is unlikely that others would understand if it were spoken in tongues. Paul might have true and false prophecy in mind here rather than tongues. The Matthew 7 passage does not mention workers of iniquity speaking in tongues. It mentions them claiming to prophesy and cast out devils in Christ's name. Christ sent out true prophets and true men who prophesied in his name, and then there were false prophets and unrighteous men who did the same. Neither passage is a reason to reject the gifts of the Spirit today.
But I believe the verse from Corinthians is enough to cause us to accept the possibility that there might be some demonic tongue. But honestly, your case that this actually happened in Corinth is about as strong as the case that Paul spoke in tongues of angels. Common sense is enough. From the New Testament, there is enough evidence to conclude that demons spoke Greek or at least Hebrew or Aramaic through the people they demonized. It is conceivable that some demonized people in then US and spoke in Greek and pretended to be 'speaking in tongues'.
**At other times, they were just speaking "senseless drivel, or
**gibberish, which also was not giving God the glory. They were
**not saying that "Jesus is the Lord," for they were not
**speaking a real language. This is what Paul was saying.
No it is not. You are saying this. Paul says nothing in this passage about 'senseless drivel.' Foreign languages are barbarian language to those who do not understand. If you try to speak English to a Chinese mountain man who doesn't understand it, you are just 'beating into the air.' But Paul never mentions speaking gibberish that had no meaning anywhere. I thought we were in agreement on this.
**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.
**28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in
**the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
**I make the same arguments because they go unanswered
**Scripturally.
It is hard to have a discussion if you do keep repeating your original points without responding to other people's responses to your original points. That is one reason why there is so much repetition in this thread and so little progress.
On the issue of tongues as a sign, I would like you to respond to the point I have made repeatedly in the thread several months ago and in this thread.
There are a few purposes for tongues in I Corinthians 14. Why would tongues cease if only one purpose was fulfilled? If tongues were a sign for the Jews, why would tongues cease? There are still Jews.
The first time the prophecy Paul quoted was fulfilled, the Jews captors kept speaking to them in a non-Hebrew language for centuries. The Jews themselves were speaking the word of God in non-Hebrew languages until the time of Christ, and are continuing to do so to this day whenever they read the scriptures out loud in a non-Hebrew tongue.
The 'tongues for a sign' passage doesn't say anything about tongues ceasing. It is about tongues being a sign, not about tongues ceasing. You haven't even made a case for tongues ceasing from this passage in this thread. You haven't explained the connection between a sign and ceasing. My dictionary has two definitions for these two words.
**Again, if Taoists 'speak in tongues' that doesn't disprove
**modern tongues any more than it disproves the tongues in
**Acts.
**Obbviously it does. You love to insuate that I lie to you. You
**call to question my integrity. But when Amen says the same
**thing in different words you don't even bother to answer his
**post. In fact you can't. You have no answer.
If you will look through the thread, you will see that I have answered the issue he raised at least twice. This is the third time I'm addressing it.
If someone speaks in Lithuanian and curses God, and someone else speaks in Lithuanian and blesses God, you are not going to be able to distinguish which one is which unless you know some Lithuanian or a similar language, or you have some kind of revelation, or some kind of other cue that gives you a hint as to who said what. Foreign languages sound foreign, so if a poster on this forum who is probably not a linguist, who has no special training, cannot tell the difference between a pagan 'tongue' and Christians speaking in tongues, what does that prove? Taoist tongues no more disprove modern tongues than they disprove Acts 2 tongues.
As for questioning your integrity, I recall saying it was disingenuous to claim that no early church writings indicated that tongues continued after the apostles, when you haven't bothered to research early church writings, and such writings do exist. I posted a quote from one such writing, and I didn't see you refute it except to downlplay the importance of patristic writings. I also pointed out how careful you were to protect the identity of a preacher who probably agrees with you on tongues, but you were quick to label a preacher who disagrees with you a 'heretic' based on a web page, and make allegations against him that you did not back up.
I think you are confusing me with another poster who thought you might be lying about the Baptist preacher and the demon. That wasn't me.
At one point
**either you or Atestring (I believe you) in so many words
**called him ignorant, and didn't know what he was talking
**about. How arrogant!!
Please point out where I said this. If you think I have mistreated you in some way, please feel free to contact me and discuss it. A private conversation would have the benefit of not clogging up a website or leading the conversation off track. I do not recall call calling Atestring or anyone 'ignorant' in this thread. It would not be too much to ask for you to look up who said what before you insinuate that I was the one who said it.
Amen wrote,
** I've had my share of visiting these Chinese temples, seen
**Hindus in trance and consulted mediums. The thing I noticed
**after I became a Christian and attended a few Charismatic
**churches is that there is really no difference in the
**tongues spoken by the Taoist mediums, Hindu trance and the
**Charismatic Christians.
Based on what does Amen say this? Does he have supernatural revelation that these tongues are the same? If they look the same externally, this proves nothing. A Lithuanian in a business suit have a conversation in a restaurant misusing God's name could look the same as a Christian in a business suit blessing God's name. If you do not speak Lithuanian or have some kind of revelation through the gift of discernment, the word of knowledge, or some other gift, how could you tell the difference.
Some Hindus go into trances. Peter fell into a trance once on a housetop. Paul fell into a trance in the temple once. The fact that some Hindus fall into trances do not make the apostles trances wrong. If witches drink coffee, that doesn't mean Christians can't drink coffee.
A poster wrote,
**Consider: Hindus in trances (demon possessed), mediums (those
**that deal with demons or evil spirits). What is the difference
**between these people and their demonic experiences and the
**Charismatic and their experiences? NONE! The obvious
**conclusion was that in that culture the so-called Christian
**comunity was influenced in their speaking in tongues by
**demonic spirits.
This is a conclusion, but it is not logical. If we look at the Bible, we see that there is a difference between the gifts of the Spirit and demonic manifestations-the source and the content.
**Many of them were probably demon possessed.
**Is speaking in tongues of God? Obviously not. I give a similar
**testimony, and you badger me about. Amen give a first hand
**testimony, much more powerful than mine, and you cannot answer
**him a word. Why is that Link??
What you are saying is not true. I have answered the point Amen made in multiple posts. In fact, I answered it on page 8 before the message I am replying to now. My answer is that his post is irrelevant. From the Bible we know that there are demonic manifestations and manifestations of the Spirit. If 'Amen' has difficulty telling the difference, perhaps he should pray for the gift of discernment of spirits.
Your 'testimony'-second hand hearsay actually-does not argue against the reality of tongues. Nor does it argue against my position. I have stated that I believe that there are genuine tongues from the Spirit, and false tongues from either the flesh or demon spirits. So if you can show conclusive proof that there are false tongues, you are simply proving a part of the stance I am taking, not disproving my stance on this issue. So why am I required to respond?
There was another poster who repeatedly demanded you get the name of that man, and said he didn't believe your story. I did not say your story was not true. I asked you once what was the big deal about asking a pastor's permission to repeat what he said. But my main point was that you show the same courtesy to brethren who disagree with you (e.g. Heyford).
**What was the major purpose of tongues according to
**1Cor.14:21,22. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew. What did
**this sign do? It got the attention of the unbelieving Jews who
**were there for the Passover. What was the result after Peter
**preached? 3000 people were saved.
The point PAUL makes from this Isaiah passage is that tongues is a sign for unbelievers, and he does not specify Jews. The verse he quotes is about 'this people' not believing when they heard God 'speak' through men of other tongues. Then he goes on to illustrate how _unbelievers _ (he does not specify Jews) and the unlearned respond to tongues with unbelief.
**Very true. Tongues always had to have an interpreter--always.
**If there was no interpreter--no understanding, the
**tongues-speaker was instructed to keep quiet.
If tongues _always _ had an interpreter, Paul would not have had to instruct the man speaking in tongues to remain silent in the church, but to speak to himself and to God.
I wrote,
**God can do the Acts 2 thing again, and I cited some reported
**accounts-- three that I'd heard of, of such things
**happening. In general, though, tongues follow the
**description of I Corinthians 14.
DHK responded
**God will never repeat the Day of Pentecost--never. This was an
**historic event in history, just as God speaking to Moses
**through the burning bush. It will never happen again.
By 'the Acts 2 thing' I meant tongues that listeners could hear in particular, and did not have the wind and tongues of fire in mind.
** Where in
**history has God ever allowed his chosen ones to speak in other
**languages, with a mighty rushing wind present, and cloven
**tongues of fire hanging over their heads? Never! In has never
**again been repeated in history, and never will. It was a
**one-time historical event.
Can you show me chapter and verse in scripture where it says that God will never repeat these things again? If you cannot, how can you be so certain? Do you know this because you got a divine, extra-scriptural revelation that God will never do such things again? If you have neither scripture nor personal revelation, you have no 'proof' for your statements. Are you willing to admit that this is your own opinion? Throughout this thread, you have made many such firm statements without any scripture support. This seems to be your attitude toward tongues. You are convinced of your position, but when asked for scriptural proof, your evidence is less than weak.
*quote:
**You have it backwards, and in your blindness to the error of
**the Charismatic movement you will not admit it, no matter what
**evidence is presented to you.
The problem is that you have not presented any evidence. T he last time this thread came around, you presented a passage about the coming of 'the perfect'-something that would cause Paul's experience up to that point to seem like childhood. This time, you present a passage about tongues being for a sign-a passage that says nothing about tongues ceasing-and act like that is evidence that tongues has ceased. Sign does not mean ceased. You haven't offered any proof at all.
My belief in speaking in tongues is not based on the 'Charismatic movement.' I am a part of the body of Christ. The labels you try to pin on me do not change my identify before God in the least. The Bible teaches that tongues is one of the gift of the Spirit, and I believe it, no matter what you say about tongues.
**These Taosits, probably have no idea what the Bible says in
**1Cor.14, much less in the rest of the Bible.
Nor did I say that they did.
It is quite evident that
**these Taosits and Charismatics are in the same camp. There is
**no evidence that either one of them are spoken by the power of
**the Holy Spirit. You have no way of demonstrating that. You
**don't know what you are saying when you are speaking in
**tongues, so yes indeed you could be worshipping the devil, and
**not God.
**DHK
I do not have any solid evidence that you do not go really worship the Devil when you are at home alone, in your prayer closet. I do not have any proof that you really pray to God instead of the Devil in your private prayer time. So what? Am I allowed (by God) to judge you as a Devil worshipper when I have absolutely no evidence that you are worshipping the Devil? Would it be right for me to imply that you are a Devil worshipper if I have no evidence? Of course not. If I have no evidence that you are worshipping the Devil, then I have no evidence.
It is the same with Charismatics. If you have no evidence that they are worshipping the Devil when they speak in tongues, then you have no evidence. I Corinthians is clear that people are not going to understand a speaker in tongues without interpretation, and the speakers own understanding is 'unfruitful.' Does this make tongues bad? No, even without interpretation, the speaker in tongues edifies himself. With interpretation, he can edify the church. The passage teaches us 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' Why can't you follow this plain command of scripture.
**********************
**Absolutely not. With tongues there is no understanding, and
**therefore no edification and no building up.
You contradict scripture again.
I Corinthians 14
4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
Does the man who speaks in a tongue edify himself or not? Who I right, you or Paul?
5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but 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.
Tongues edifies the one who speaks it. Prophecy edifies the church. Notice there is an exception-that is in the case that the tongues are interpreted.
**It doesn't build you up. It gives you an emotional high.
It does build me up, which we can see from scripture, but I do not get an 'emotional high.' You do not know what you are talking about.
**Tongues have ceased. This is easily demonstrated from
**Scripture to all those who have an open and objective mind to
**believe the Scripture. It is demonstrable through
**1Cor.14:21,22 alone, let alone all the other Scripture that
**point to the cessation of tongues.
Those two verses say absolutely nothing about tongues ceasing. Even if one holds that the sign was specifically to the Jews, the verse still says nothing about tongues ceasing.
Furthermore, there is another use for tongues in I Corinthians 14-edifying the speaker. Another use is edifying the church if accompanied by interpretation. Gifts are given 'to profit withal.' You acknowledge that this is a purpose of gifts. Tongues is included in that list. So it doesn't make sense that tongues would cease even if one purpose of tongues (you argue a sign to the unbelieving Jews in particular) was no longer needed. The last time I checked, however, there were plenty of unbelieving Jews.
**But in truth it was a
**sign to the unbelieving Jews of the first century. That is the
**context of the verses. If you want to discuss this passage, we
**can.
Sure. You may want to start by responding to the lengthy comments I have already made about this verse in previous threads. If you don't respond to the points made in the threads, and just repeat your first points, whether true or false, then it is hard for the conversation to go anywhere.
**And this proves what? The verse is a rebuke. Take in its
**context. He is telling them not to speak in tongues without an
**interpreter. Thus speak unto God. But what happens when you
**speak unto God. There is still no understanding. It is a
**reproof, not an encouragement.
C&V, C&V. Show me where you get this idea that Paul's point is if they speak in tongues to God, there is still no understanding and they should not do it.
It is clear from the passage that, even though the understanding of the speaker in tongues is not fruitful, the speaker in tongues edifies himself. The exception to this is if the tongues are interpreted.
What you are doing is reading your own negative attitude toward tongues into the passage. Paul's attitude toward prophecy is very positive in the passage. His attitude toward tongues with interpretation is positive, but he may not be as enthusiastic as enthusiastic as he is toward prophecy. What is his attitude towards uninterpreted tongues? I would say mildly positive. He recognizes that uninterpreted tongues edify the speaker. He says to 'let' people speak in tongues and 'forbid not' to speak in tongues.
He uses 'let' in 'let him speak to himself and to God. Paul points out that there is a positive to uninterpreted tongues, self-edification. He spends a lot of the chapter arguing that edifying the church is superior to edifying oneself, arguing that tongues in church need to be interpreted. Paul allows uninterpreted tongues, but not in the church. Actually, he gives the Lord's commandments about these things. Paul commands "covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." He has blatant enthusiasm towards prophesy, but he makes sure that tongues are allowed.
Where do you get that Paul is negative toward uninterpreted tongues? It isn't in the passage. You are brining the idea with you into the passage when you read it. It comes from your own mind. Paul's idea is that tongues be allowed and not forbidden. So how in the world do you come up with the idea that Paul is flat out forbidding speaking in tongues without interpretation. He says 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' Aside from the restrictions he has laid out in the passage, there is freedom for speaking in tongues.
**You are misreading the
**statement and taking it out of context.
**You only quoted the verse in part. That is being deceitful,
**and taking Scripture out of context.
I quoted the verse and clearly snipped part out in a way that everyone could see what I saw doing to show what part refered to what. He that is to 'speak to himself and to God' is the man who speaks in tongues-if there is no interpretation. This is clear from the passage. Paul says the let the man speak to himself and to God. You seem to be saying that his real point in saying 'let him speak to himself and to God' is that he should NOT be speaking in tongues to God privately. That makes no sense whatsoever, and it does not agree with the plain sense of the text.
Btw, there are may be some stronger straws to grasp at on the left side of the cliff.
**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.
**--Even unto God you are speaking mysteries when you speak in
**tongues. In other words speaking nonsense to God, intelligent
**gibberish that not even God or you understand, is useless. If
**you don't understand what you are saying, that God doesn't
**understand what you are trying to express to Him. I am not
**underestimating his omniscience here. Use an earthly
**illustration.
That illustration is very earthly, and not very scriptural. God understands all mysteries. In context, we can see that the tongues are a 'mystery' because if someone doesn't know a language, they cannot understand it. What is said is a mystery. The passage explains what Paul means when he says 'mystery'-and it certainly does not mean that God doesn't understand tongues. What does it mean when it says that tongues are a mystery?
11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
If someone speaks in a foreign language I do not know, what he is saying is a 'mystery.'
**I am a missionary in a mid-eastern nation. After a Charismatic
**attended a Pentecostal crusade, he felt so ("filled with the
**Spirit)--actually it was "so emotonal," that in this crowded
**bus, full of Muslims, he began to speak in "tongues." What do
**you think happened? Just as Paul said would happen, they all
**thought that he was crazy, of course. He was mad! It was a
**silly thing to do. They didn't understand what he was saying,
**and when people speak gibberish, no man understands it,
**because it is not a real language.
**Communication, either with God, or with man, requires
**understanding. Tongues does not permit that.
That sounds like the example Paul gave of the whole church speaking in tongues in the presence of a visiting unbeliever. Paul was using this in a passage about REAL SPEAKING IN TONGUES-not a passage about fake speaking in tongues. So using gifts foolishly does not mean the gifts are not real, whether we are talking about the first century or the 21st century.
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.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in
the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.
**Speaking to yourself and to God is not speaking in tongues. It
**is not part of the speaking in tongues; it never was.
I quoted multiple messages from you in this post. It appears you have changed your position between posts.
What you are saying here goes against the plain sense of the text. The one who is to 'speak to himself and to God' is the man that would 'speak in an unknown tongue' in the case that 'there be no interpreter.' This is all clear from the verses above. You ask me to disbelieve the plain sense of the text. On what authority? Because it is your opinion? Do you have some divine revelation that your interpretation is true instead of the plain sense of the text? How can you hold to confidently to a position when there is no reason to believe it? Do you interpret the text this way because that is the only way to make it fit with an idea you believe in so strongly?
** The
**former was a rebuke not to do it. God doesn't want to hear
**mysteries. God wants your understanding.
**When you speak to God, you speak with understanding.
If that is what Paul's point is, why doesn't he make the point in the text? If your 'interpretation' were true, then why does Paul say 'forbid not to speak in tongues.'
If your interpretation were true, then it would make no sense for Paul to write that the man who speaks in tongues builds himself up. But yet he does this in I Corinthians 14:4.
** That
**means you speak in your language. It is that simple.
**I still cannot see how a person who objectively studies this
**passage cannot come away with the conclusion that this passage
**would teach anything else but that a person would never pray
**in tongues.
If Paul's point were that no one should ever pray in tongues privately, then it does not make sense that he would say that tongues builds up the one who uses the gift, to allow a man to speak in tongues without interpretion as long as it was not in the church ('let him speak to himself and to God'), and that he would say in his conclusion 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' If Paul is not enthusiastic about uninterpreted tongues, he at least allows it. This much is clearfromthe passage.
I honestly cannot see how you can come to your conclusion when reading the passage. How about this? We both pray, as Paul did for the Ephesians, that we will both receive the Spirit of revelation, and pray that God will open up the understanding of this passage to both of us, so that we can see things God's way. The Holy Spirit reveals scripture.
** Praying in tongues is a selfish gift. Tongues is
**clearly a gift given to the entire church, never to be used
**privately.
Tongues is a gift to the church. In the church it must be used with interpretation so that the whole church be edified. Otherwise, a speaker in tongues without interpretation is allowed to speak to himself and to God, and Christians or forbidden by scripture from forbidding tongues outright.
