tongues

[tamborine lady]

For all the people who do not believe that tongues are for today:

I think that you are protesting way to much!!!

Because, it has nothing to do with getting to heaven, so why get all bent out of shape?

Don't worry, if you don't want it then the Holy Spirit will not force it on you!!

Peace,

Tam,

 

[eschatologist]

Once again I say, try the gifts of Faith, Hope, and Love, with the greatest of these being Love; these are the gifts that God wants to see in us. These others are basically to impress the flesh.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I thought 'Love' was a Fruit of the Spirit as displayed by Patience, Longsuffering, etc.

Faith, Hope, and Love.

1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

I don't *even* want to get into the abuse of the Prophetic. Arrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh!

But, I do find it interesting that Paul's discourse on Spiritual Gifts is broken up by a parenthetical clause about Love, or, rather Charity... Which is commonly defined as Love in Action.

It's almost like Paul was looking forward in time and could see how divisive an issue this would become (I know it had *already* become such in Corinth) an felt that he had to emphasize the *real* proof of Spirituality. Which *is* Love.

Yes, you did just hear that from a Pentcostal.

Incidently, here's a quote from George Verwer's Booklet, "A Revolution of love" which kinda sums up my thoughts in this area...

A few years ago, a dear emotional Christian woman told me about people who were having experiences in the Spirit. I asked, "When the Holy Spirit works in such a mighty way, shouldn't that produce a moral revolution? Shouldn't the man who has such experiences afterwards be filled with love and joy and peace? Shouldn't he forsake all that he has, as we are told the early Christians did in the book of Acts? Shouldn't he lay down his life for others?"

The lady aid to me, "Sometimes the Holy Spirit comes just to give us joy and a wonderful experience and blessing." I said to her, "You mean that sometimes the Holy Spirit comes apart from His Holiness?" She began to ponder that.

I tell you, the Holy Spirit does not come apart from His Holiness. The emphasis is not on Spirit but on Holy, and He cannot come without His moral character. It is for this reason that we measure a person's experience with the Spirit (although we prefer to say the Spirit's experience with the person), on the basis of his moral quality.

The full article is at: http://www.houseofmyrrh.org/revolove.htm

I think a hardcopy can be obtained from Operation Mobilization but it's been in and out of print a lot.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:


If it were perfect it would no longer be subject to debate or translation. It would only need to be in one *correct* language and translation.

As it is fine points are still debated among bona fide Christians to this day meaning it is not perfect in any of it's current translations or languages.

Not only that but *every* translation is incomplete (and thus not perfect in the completeness equals perfection line of thought) because each and every translation leaves out text that others insist is canonical.

Sorry, but, I can't buy your argument.

Your disagreement lies with the Word of God, and with Christ Himself. It was Christ that promised that not one jot or one tittle (the smallest letter and the smallest part of a Hebrew letter) would pass from this Word until all should be fulfilled.
Peter wrote: The grass withereth; the flower fadeth, but the word of the Lord abideth forever.
Again he said: 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Paul said:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Note all Scripture is inspired. God spoke through Holy men as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Christ preserves His Word. To say that He does not, or will not, or cannot, is not only to call Him a liar, but it is also to cast an aspersion on His very divinity.

I never said a word about translations. The "holy men of God that spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," were the prophets of the Old Testament, and by extension the Apostles of the New. They did not include any translators. The Word of God is still preserved in copies of the originals. But it was the originals that were inspired by those whom God chose to write the very words that he wanted them to write. From that time to this God has providentially preserved His Word. We still have many Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
We have the completed Word of God in the Greek New Testament and in the Hebrew Old Testament. Translations are what men do, and debating, as you say, is what man does. God has given us His revelation. It is complete. It is all we need.

Sorry, but, I can't buy your argument.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:

...tongues is not of God, yes it is of the devil.

Some clarification here:
Though there was a typo in that statement it would be better put this way:

In one sense, though modern day tongues is not of God, yet it is still of the devil.
Let me explain further. Anytime you sin; it is of the devil is it not. It certainly isn't of God. Every day both you and I sin. We can't go through one day without sinning. And everytime we do sin, we give into the devil's temptation, or our own selfish carnal desires, or a combination of both. I am not saying that we can blame sin on the devil, for we choose to sin. The devil just helps us along. It is accurate to say that sin is of the devil.

So you feel that a person wanting to serve God, goes in prayer and the devil is allowed to enter, even though they are talking to God?

Satan will attack the Christian most when he is praying. God is not going to stop the attacks of Satan. It is a battle. And we have to yield every thought and imagination to the obedience of Jesus Christ. The devil (or his demons) is with you wherever you go--even Bible College. He never skips a beat. He's there in church, at Bible studies, in prayer meetings, and he is there when you are in your own private devotions as well.

How did you get yourself into such a state of belief? All I can say is, "may God help you!"

How can you not believe otherwise. If the presence of the devil was not so ubiquitous, why would the Word of God admonish us: "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you." (James 4:7). I wouldn't have to resist the devil, if he wasn't there, would I?
DHK

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Mel Tillis, for example, has a problem with the filter called stuttering, the repetition of usaully the first syllable.
When he sings memorized words however, there is no stuttering for the filter is bypassed: straight from the memory area of the brain right into the control area of the brain.

Mel Tillis doesn't really stutter. He conquered it when he was still very young with help from one of his college professors.

He just does it now as a gimmick.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
But, I find it the depth of insult to tell me that *I* who love Jesus and who boldly proclaim that there is no other name under heaven whereby men must be saved, am demon possessed.

That *I* am of the devil...

I never said that anyone personally on this board was demon possessed. No false accusations please. In fact, what I said was that it was possible for people to be demon-possessed by opening up their minds to such an experience. I specifically referred to those having no knowledge of Biblical salvation. So if the shoe fits you may wear it, but I did not refer to anyone specifically.
To be more specific or clear on this matter, I do not believe that most tongues is the result of demonism, but rather a psychological phenomena of a person who allows the sub-conscious part of their mind to by-pass the conscious part of their mind, with the end result of an emotional high mixed with unintelligent syllables strung together. However there is a danger.
Phil. 4:8 commands us to THINK on these things.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

This is just one passage. Over and over again we are commanded to use our minds: to meditate on these things, to take heed, to study, to read, to search, to ponder, to think, etc.
It is our obligation to keep our minds occupied with those things that are mentioned in Phil.4:8 that we might bear the fruit of the Spirit.

Speaking in tongues requires one to empty the mind. That is the most dangerous and unscriptural thing that one can do. Once you "clean house," you just ready it for that many more demons to come in. Jesus taught that. The cults operate in that manner. Open up your minds; forget everything you have learned in the past. It leads to demonism. It is occultic. A Christian ought never to open their mind to anything, even to speak in tongues (especially to speak in tongues).

2 Corinthians 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

[QUOTEYes, I am a bit peeved that a person whom I have extended the right hand of fellowship as by Brother in Christ would consider *me* of the devil and an unwitting dupe of satan.[/QUOTE]
And I hope you have realized by now that I have never said that you are of the devil nor have I said "an unwitting dupe of satan," possible--but I didn't say you were.

Aren't *you* glad I didn't accuse *you* of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? You know that sin that will *never* be forgiven...

You probably don't know what that sin is, and don't even realize that it can't be committed today anyway.

But, please remember that some you accuse may actually be your brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

I am fully aware of that. That is part of the reason that I took the time to further clarify my original remarks. I hope it helps.
DHK

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Thankful:
Mike, I am glad that you asked these questions and for the most part this is a civil discussion. I find discussions of tongues most interesting.

Thanks, thankful. I was really hesitant to ask because I new that there were some who just have to show that they can prove or disprove the exsistance of tongues and that it would turn into a discussion on the perpetuity of tongues.

...and it did.

Tongues were never discussed in the Baptist Church where I grew up and then when I learned about tongues, I thought that everyone had to speak in tongues to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This bothered me a lot because I knew I was saved. I knew the Holy Spirit. Then one day as I was reading the Bible, I understood that speaking in tongues is one gift of the Holy Spirit and that SOME are given this gift.

Yeah, this is something I was trying to explain to a new believer on another board who was upset because she hadn't recieved this gift.

One of the things that I hate so much about the way that the gifts of the spirit are abused in the church today is that some well meaning (and some not so well meaning) people hold them over the heads of new believers in order to make themselves look more spiritual. This is kind of funny since it's exactly the same thing Paul was warning about but these people can quote that passage to you all day and still not see that it's about themselves.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:

Aren't *you* glad I didn't accuse *you* of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? You know that sin that will *never* be forgiven...

You probably don't know what that sin is, and don't even realize that it can't be committed today anyway.

DHK </font>

What is the sin of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirt" according to you DHK? Also, why can't it be committed today?

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
against the Holy Spirt" according to you DHK? Also, why can't it be committed today?

MEE

If you want the answer, start another thread; this one is about tongues.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
against the Holy Spirt" according to you DHK? Also, why can't it be committed today?

MEE

If you want the answer, start another thread; this one is about tongues. </font>[/QUOTE]That's OK DHK, I wouldn't have believed your answer anyway. I was just curious as to what you would say.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If you want the answer, start another thread; this one is about tongues.

That's OK DHK, I wouldn't have believed your answer anyway. I was just curious as to what you would say.

MEE

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]A stubborn will and a biased mind are two great obstacles to learning. Why do you even come here to post if you are unwilling to hear what another has to say, and be open enough to see if it is worth believing??

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:

[/QB]

A stubborn will and a biased mind are two great obstacles to learning. Why do you even come here to post if you are unwilling to hear what another has to say, and be open enough to see if it is worth believing?? [/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't have a stubborn will or a biased mind! It's just that you are so off when it comes to some things that I was curious as to what *YOUR* response would be. That's all!

I like to learn what other people believe, even though I don't always agree with them about 'their' interpretation.

MEE

 

[southern phoenix]

Ed Edwards:
Here is my observation:
There is part of the brain that kicks out syllables,
let me call it the generator.
There is part of the brain that filters the stream
of syllables to make meaningful words. The Censor sends it's
output to the part of the brain that control the
signals for the word forming parts of the body.

Mel Tillis, for example, has a problem with the filter
called stuttering, the repetition of usaully the first syllable.
When he sings memorized words however, there is no stuttering
for the filter is bypassed: straight from the memory
area of the brain right into the control area of the brain.

hi Ed, may I know how I may get any references of your observation ? and why such problem may occur ?

since I assume that "modern glossa" is not a spiritual gift, I am trying to find out the reason (such as a psychological/physical problem) of why some people practice it.

well, surely I don`t think that those with "modern glossa" are all from the devil

Gby,

-ken-

 

[Ed Edwards]

Fun double post

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by southern phoenix:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Ed Edwards:
Here is my observation:
There is part of the brain that kicks out syllables,
let me call it the generator.
There is part of the brain that filters the stream
of syllables to make meaningful words. The Censor sends it's
output to the part of the brain that control the
signals for the word forming parts of the body.

Mel Tillis, for example, has a problem with the filter
called stuttering, the repetition of usaully the first syllable.
When he sings memorized words however, there is no stuttering
for the filter is bypassed: straight from the memory
area of the brain right into the control area of the brain.

hi Ed, may I know how I may get any references of your observation ? and why such problem may occur ?

since I assume that "modern glossa" is not a spiritual gift, I am trying to find out the reason (such as a psychological/physical problem) of why some people practice it.

well, surely I don`t think that those with "modern glossa" are all from the devil

Gby, -ken- </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]God bless you, brother Ken

No, i don't have any source material to share.
I developed this at a time after college
and before electronic bulletin boards
(were "walls"). So i didn't jot down my
references.

I think it is worthy to find out
if the sign gifts are for the founding
fathers only, why they are still practiced
today. I do note that it is a lot easier to
speak tongues than to raise someone from
the dead.

Anyway, i was being treated for clinical
depression. I found out that if i spake to
myself in unknown tongues, i didn't hurt
as much. Of course, maybe that was just
turning off the part of the brain that
was depressed.

As for speaking unknown tongues out loud,
i wouldn't dare

if there was a tongues
interperter in my Southern Baptist Church,
they wouldn't dare do no interperting.
I aught to know, i'm a bouncer, uh, ah,
well, an usher

Anyway, one day i went to a church were
they practiced the speaking of tongues.
The preacher gave a right nice sermon with
three points all nicely alliterated.
I thought as he was preaching that
this was my message from God brought to me
by this preacher man and given to me
exactly when i needed it.
After the 3rd point was made, after the
alter call, the preacher's wife in the back
corner began to speak in tongues. The preacher
interperted. It was the same three points.
Did i need a sign that the sermon was
from God? Nope, i already figured that out
in my head. Did somebody else need it
as a sign from above? I don't know.

 

[Travelsong]

I'm with DHK on this one. I think his conclusions are doctrinally sound.

I grew up in a variety of churches, and as far as anectotal evidence goes, my experiences where tongues were practiced were all transparently phony. Furthermore I would be willing to wager large sums that any fluent Greek speaking individual who would pretend to speak in tongues at a church which practices them will be interpreted incorrectly 100% of the time. I know a man who has done it several times not for kicks, but to demonstrate the foolery of dabbling in things that are not meant to be dabbled with.

 

[Ed Edwards]

1 Corinthians 13: 1 (nKJV):

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,
but have not love, I have become sounding brass
or a clanging cymbal.

I doubt if "the tongues ... of angels" is Greek
or Hebrew. I doubt if the tongues of angels are the
tongues of men.

 

[Don]

And I doubt that there is a tongue of angels. Because if I just blindly accepted that the word "though" that starts that sentence doesn't really mean anything, and I just blindly accepted this one sentence (the ONLY one in the entire Bible that mentions a tongue of angels), then I'd have to make the assumption that Paul also gave his body to be burned, and bestowed all his goods to feed the poor.

And I have yet to find anyone who can show that he did either.

 

[Ed Edwards]

OK you can explain away 1 Corinthians 13:1.

Now explain away 1 Corinthians 14:2 (nKJV):
For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak
to men but to God, for no one understands him;
however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

Does the tongue talker speak Greek or Hebrew to God?