Salvation and a third baptism often occur simultaneously

[sdowney717]

There is no such thing as angelic tongues. That is a very common misinterpretation of 1 Cor 13:1. If you look at the context of that verse it is obvious what Paul means. This verse forms one of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the superiority of love over the spiritual gifts.

1 Cor 13:1-3
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and
if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and
if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.​

Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. What Paul is saying in this passage is that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, it would be worthless. It is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figures of speech to make his point.

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he was omniscient? Obviously not.

Did Paul really have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul really have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor and made himself destitute? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he literally speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally.

There is only one type of tongues, foreign human languages as defined in Acts 2:4-11.

Your very misplaced confidence blinds you to the truth, I can see that.
The tongues of Acts had a purpose sent from God, so that in their own languages they heard the mighty works of God and understood them. They were not mysteries spoken to God, but your doctrine denies your ability to see that I think so.

Your philosophy twists the meaning in this verse, can you see that at all?

2 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.

Yet the supporting verse you quote, does show those men understood what was being said!

You have created your own conflict in the scriptures.

 

[swordsman1]

2 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.

Yet the supporting verse you quote, does show those men understood what was being said!

You have created your own conflict in the scriptures.

There is no conflict in 1 Cor 14:2

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.
​

In the Corinthian church he who spoke in an untranslated foreign tongue was not speaking to men because nobody in the predominantly Greek congregation understood him. The words were a mystery to them. Only God, who understands all languages, understood what was said.

In Acts 2 the tongues were spoken in front of an audience of thousands of foreigners gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. So they did understand.

 

[sdowney717]

There is no conflict in 1 Cor 14:2

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.
​

In the Corinthian church he who spoke in an untranslated foreign tongue was not speaking to men because nobody in the congregation understood him. The words were a mystery to them. Only God, who understands all languages, understood what was said.

In Acts 2 the tongues were spoken in front of an audience of thousands of foreigners gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. So they did understand.

You said this
"There is only one type of tongues, foreign human languages as defined in Acts 2:4-11."

Of course you will refuse to see your conflict in the scriptures that you created only for yourself, your very consistently stuck in your doctrine...

The tongues Paul teaches on specifically says no man understands them and are spoken to God only as spiritual mysteries. But you change the meaning of that scripture.

"2 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."
However the tongue spoken in Acts 2, men did understand as it was in their native language.
But the tongue in 2 Cor 14, is not in any native language of man.
The purpose is clearly stated in the verse, as being spoken to God and not to men, so their exists no language of men that could understand it.

No one could possibly ever understand that type of tongue unless an interpretation was provided by God to the people of the church.
But I am confident in your persistence, that is people are locked into doctrine unless they receive revelation from God to know the truth, otherwise they persist according to what they think they know in their mind. Such are the opponents to God, and only God can grant repentance to know the truth.
This is between yourself and the Lord and not me.

 

[swordsman1]

You said this
"There is only one type of tongues, foreign human languages as defined in Acts 2:4-11."

Of course you will refuse to see your conflict in the scriptures that you created only for yourself, your very consistently stuck in your doctrine...

The tongues Paul teaches on specifically says no man understands them and are spoken to God only as spiritual mysteries. But you change the meaning of that scripture.

"2 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."
However the tongue spoken in Acts 2, men did understand as it was in their native language.
But the tongue in 2 Cor 14, is not in any native language of man.
The purpose is clearly stated in the verse, as being spoken to God and not to men, so their exists no language of men that could understand it.

No one could possibly ever understand that type of tongue unless an interpretation was provided by God to the people of the church.
But I am confident in your persistence, that is people are locked into doctrine unless they receive revelation from God to know the truth, otherwise they persist according to what they think they know in their mind. Such are the opponents to God, and only God can grant repentance to know the truth.
This is between yourself and the Lord and not me.

At the church in Corinth somebody was speaking Arabic for example. Nobody in the predominantly Greek congregation would have understood him. His words were a mystery to them and needed to be translated. Only God understood what was said.

In Acts 2 Jerusalem was packed with thousands of foreigners gathered for the feast of Pentecost. So they did understand.

Acts 2:5 "Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven."​

 

[brotherjerry]

marvin,

in reference to Acts 2:4-11)

That passage in the book of Acts says nothing about tongues being known languages.

Yes it absolutely does. Vs 6 "...and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language" and in vs 8 "And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born?" and again in vs 11 "... we hear tem in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God"

This was not an unknown tongue that was being spoken of here, but it was the individuals native tongue that was being heard.
No matter how you slice this the "tongue" being referred to is known languages.

I am at least pleased to hear that you do not agree with the idea of what many Holiness churches and other pentocoastal churches practice, that being speaking in tongues in more public forums such as church services and the like. Which is exactly what Paul was speaking about in Corinthians. So I am at a loss where you see it being OK on your own?

I have never spoken in tongues for a sign either for myself or for unbelievers.

Then you have done so agains what Paul says in the Bible they are for?
"So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers..."

Sometimes they are together and sometimes they are separate

And when they are separate they are unfruitful as Paul said in vs 13-15. As well as if you pray in tongue then you also should interpret, because if you feel that you are praying with the spirit and your mind is not able to interpret, then you separate and not together. Paul is specifically speaking to the individual praying as well, you may be uttering sounds but unless you can understand those sounds as a language, then you are not praying together and thus not fruitful.

You mentioned Swordsman was "biased" and that kept him "from reading thigns as they are written and leaving them alone without changing them" but he was spot on when he pointed out that you were the one who actually added to them. He pointed out in Acts 2 that interpretation was never mentioned there, but your doctrine relies upon interpretation being key. He pointed out that vs 4 says the they began to speak in other tongues...plural. And even pointed out as I had there are several verses that clearly state the people heard them speaking in their native languages...no interpreation, the people heard a language they understood.

All of this is also supported by the idea that languages, any language, can be learned. Language is defined as a repetition of sounds to make words and ultimately to allow communication. Tongues is synonymous with languages in the Bible. And this is also why Paul mentions interpreting...if someone is claiming to be speaking spiritually and you can't understand them...there best be an interpreter. And ultimately if they continue to interpret, someone else could learn the language.

 

[brotherjerry]

Downey,

Can you provide one example of God speaking in a language that man did not understand?
Can you provide one example of angels speaking in a language that men did not understand?

Also 1 Cor 14:2 you utilize without the context of the rest of that entire chapter.
vs 4 "one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself"
vs 12 "seek to abound for the edification of the church"
So we are not to seek after things that edify ourselves, but instead the church.
Even back in vs 5 "...unless he interprets (the one speaking in tongue), so that the church may receive edifying"

Paul even later says in vs 19 "in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also (there is that edification), rather than ten thousand words in a tongue"
So Paul would rather think up 5 words that he can use for the instruction of others in the church than to ramble off ten thousand words that are not understood by anyone.

 

[Marvin Knox]

marvin ..........................................

People keep making the same invalid assumption concerning what tongues are.

You say that they were known languages and the text doesn’t say that. You aren’t alone in that of course. But that doesn’t make it anymore valid.

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” Acts 2:4-11

If someone wrote that “Marvin began to praise God in tongues” – and “There was a Mexican, a Frenchman, and a Russian who were listening to Marvin praise God” – and “Each of those foreigners heard Marvin praising God in the tongue to which that foreigner was born” ----------------- that narrative would not necessarily have meant that Marvin praised God in Spanish, French, and then Russian.

You might assume that. But you would have gone beyond what was said in the narrative. A lot of people – even the vast majority of people - might make that same assumption. That wouldn’t make it right IMO.

What the narrative may really be saying is that Marvin began to praise God in tongues, which is something that I do regularly (and it’s not done in Spanish, French, or Russian), and that God made sure that the foreigners understood what Marvin was saying by allowing them to hear Marvin in the language to which eacj was born.

They obviously heard in their own languages. But it doesn’t say that the words were “spoken” in their languages.

Picture it this way. ----- It isn’t likely that, say, John started praising God in Greek and just happened to go out on the back porch of the house as a group of Greeks were walking by. They then heard John praising God in their native tongue.

It isn’t likely that, say, Bartholomew began praising God in Spanish and decided to walk down the sidewalk toward the west just as a group of Spaniards were walking down that same sidewalk in his direction. They too then heard Bart praising God in their native tongue.

It isn’t likely that, say, James began to praise God in French and headed out the front door just as a group of French men were passing by the front of the house. They too then heard James praising God in their native tongue.

AND ON AND ON IT GOES.

What is more likely is that the recipients of the Spirit’s enabling began to speak in other tongues (just as I do regularly) as each person of the outside group “heard” them speaking in their own native tongue. Which is, of course, exactly and only what the narrative says.

What is more likely is that those who did not receive understanding (the non-elect if you will) heard nothing but the babbling that you and I have likely both heard on T.B.N. when tongues is abused.

In like manner from another type of example - I have spoken in tongues while praising God in the Spirit and sometimes felt some insight from the Lord that didn’t come naturally during my study time earlier in the day. It wasn’t Spanish, Russian, French or anything else like that I was praising God in. It was “tongues” of a different kind - as anyone who heard me would readily see.

Now the entire idea of the passage concerning the reception and sharing of prophecies from the Lord in a church setting- is that those messages come to us in tongues.

Now - if I had a message from God by way of prophecy, in a church setting, and I prayed to interpret so that I could share it with the people around me (as per the directions in 1 Corinthians 14) - it isn’t very likely that God would give me the prophecy in Spanish if there were mostly Frenchmen in the church at the time (or more likely regular English/Americans like myself).

Why would I have to pray for interpretation so that I could share it when God could well have me bringing it directly in French or English as the occasion warranted?

Or - how is it that I would have to pray for interpretation if the language I was receiving it in was my own English language? I wouldn’t have to pray for interpretation of that now would I? And – again – why would I have to pray for interpretation if I brought it in the language of the Frenchmen? I wouldn’t of course have to at all.

And - again – why on earth would the Holy Spirit give me the prophecy in Swahili or some other totally unknown to anyone language when the prophecy wasn’t for anyone of that language group?

The entire idea of praying for interpretation rests with the idea that the tongues that one receives a prophetic message in is something other than my own language and also something other than the language of the group I am with - if they happen to be of something other than my own language group.

Come now - let's reason together for a moment. Why on earth would someone coming into the church and hearing me bring a prophecy in my own language think that I was "mad" as the scriptures warn about? Why on earth would someone coming into the church and hearing me bring a prophecy in French to a bunch of Frenchmen think that I was mad?

Why - even - would someone coming into the church and hearing me bring a prophecy in Spanish to a bunch of Frenchmen or Ameicans like myself think that I was mad? He might well wonder why I was bringing a message in Spanish to Frenchmen and Englishmen (just as I would wonder why the Holy Spirit was doing such a thing). But he wouldn't think that I was mad (or "drunk" like they did at Pentecost).

No --- it's that silly babbling like we hear of T.B.N. without interpretation of any kind that makes the world think ill of the speaker.

Anyone, like myself, who obeys the scripture and prays in the Spirit understands that this is not a known language. I don’t understand it and neither does any other person (unless God gives them understanding in the language that their thoughts normally operated in - just as He did for those folks at Pentecost).

I’ve got to stop this. I’m just shooting from the hip in this post.

I’m not even sure that I have made things clear here. The format is so limited.

But if everyone would at least be open to receiving something like this from the Lord – and ask with faith – and step out and obey the Spirit as He gave utterance (if indeed He chose to) ----- they would understand how these things work just as naturally as I do.

But so long as they are bound by the very unbiblical teaching that these things we see in the Word of God have passed away and are not for the church any more – that isn’t very likely that that person will receive.

I suppose many people will be likely to stumble when it is required that they receive something like this on pure faith.

But – whoa – to the one by whom that stumbling comes.

Let’s be careful out there.

 

[swordsman1]

People keep making the same invalid assumption concerning what tongues are.

You say that they were known languages and the text doesn’t say that. You aren’t alone in that of course. But that doesn’t make it anymore valid.

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance. Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language. They were amazed and astonished, saying, “Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we each hear them in our own language to which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.” Acts 2:4-11

If someone wrote that “Marvin began to praise God in tongues” – and “There was a Mexican, a Frenchman, and a Russian who were listening to Marvin praise God” – and “Each of those foreigners heard Marvin praising God in the tongue to which that foreigner was born” ----------------- that narrative would not necessarily have meant that Marvin praised God in Spanish, French, and then Russian.

You might assume that. But you would have gone beyond what was said in the narrative. A lot of people – even the vast majority of people - might make that same assumption. That wouldn’t make it right IMO.

What the narrative may really be saying is that Marvin began to praise God in tongues, which is something that I do regularly (and it’s not done in Spanish, French, or Russian), and that God made sure that the foreigners understood what Marvin was saying by allowing them to hear Marvin in the language to which eacj was born.

They obviously heard in their own languages. But it doesn’t say that the words were “spoken” in their languages.

Picture it this way. ----- It isn’t likely that, say, John started praising God in Greek and just happened to go out on the back porch of the house as a group of Greeks were walking by. They then heard John praising God in their native tongue.

It isn’t likely that, say, Bartholomew began praising God in Spanish and decided to walk down the sidewalk toward the west just as a group of Spaniards were walking down that same sidewalk in his direction. They too then heard Bart praising God in their native tongue.

It isn’t likely that, say, James began to praise God in French and headed out the front door just as a group of French men were passing by the front of the house. They too then heard James praising God in their native tongue.

AND ON AND ON IT GOES.

What is more likely is that the recipients of the Spirit’s enabling began to speak in other tongues (just as I do regularly) as each person of the outside group “heard” them speaking in their own native tongue. Which is, of course, exactly and only what the narrative says.

What is more likely is that those who did not receive understanding (the non-elect if you will) heard nothing but the babbling that you and I have likely both heard on T.B.N. when tongues is abused.

In like manner from another type of example - I have spoken in tongues while praising God in the Spirit and sometimes felt some insight from the Lord that didn’t come naturally during my study time earlier in the day. It wasn’t Spanish, Russian, French or anything else like that I was praising God in. It was “tongues” of a different kind - as anyone who heard me would readily see.

Now the entire idea of the passage concerning the reception and sharing of prophecies from the Lord in a church setting- is that those messages come to us in tongues.

Now - if I had a message from God by way of prophecy, in a church setting, and I prayed to interpret so that I could share it with the people around me (as per the directions in 1 Corinthians 14) - it isn’t very likely that God would give me the prophecy in Spanish if there were mostly Frenchmen in the church at the time (or more likely regular English/Americans like myself).

Why would I have to pray for interpretation so that I could share it when God could well have me bringing it directly in French or English as the occasion warranted?

Or - how is it that I would have to pray for interpretation if the language I was receiving it in was my own English language? I wouldn’t have to pray for interpretation of that now would I? And – again – why would I have to pray for interpretation if I brought it in the language of the Frenchmen? I wouldn’t of course have to at all.

And - again – why on earth would the Holy Spirit give me the prophecy in Swahili or some other totally unknown to anyone language when the prophecy wasn’t for anyone of that language group?

The entire idea of praying for interpretation rests with the idea that the tongues that one receives a prophetic message in is something other than my own language and also something other than the language of the group I am with - if they happen to be of something other than my own language group.

Come now - let's reason together for a moment. Why on earth would someone coming into the church and hearing me bring a prophecy in my own language think that I was "mad" as the scriptures warn about? Why on earth would someone coming into the church and hearing me bring a prophecy in French to a bunch of Frenchmen think that I was mad?

Why - even - would someone coming into the church and hearing me bring a prophecy in Spanish to a bunch of Frenchmen or Ameicans like myself think that I was mad? He might well wonder why I was bringing a message in Spanish to Frenchmen and Englishmen (just as I would wonder why the Holy Spirit was doing such a thing). But he wouldn't think that I was mad (or "drunk" like they did at Pentecost).

No --- it's that silly babbling like we hear of T.B.N. without interpretation of any kind that makes the world think ill of the speaker.

Anyone, like myself, who obeys the scripture and prays in the Spirit understands that this is not a known language. I don’t understand it and neither does any other person (unless God gives them understanding in the language that their thoughts normally operated in - just as He did for those folks at Pentecost).

I’ve got to stop this. I’m just shooting from the hip in this post.

I’m not even sure that I have made things clear here. The format is so limited.

But if everyone would at least be open to receiving something like this from the Lord – and ask with faith – and step out and obey the Spirit as He gave utterance (if indeed He chose to) ----- they would understand how these things work just as naturally as I do.

But so long as they are bound by the very unbiblical teaching that these things we see in the Word of God have passed away and are not for the church any more – that isn’t very likely that that person will receive.

I suppose many people will be likely to stumble when it is required that they receive something like this on pure faith.

But – whoa – to the one by whom that stumbling comes.

Let’s be careful out there.

The problem you are having is with the word 'tongues'. Because today it is commonly used to mean the activity that charismatics practice you are automatically assuming that 'tongues' (Gr. glossa) has the same meaning in the bible. It is not.
The biblical Greek word glossa only means two things - the organ in your mouth, and a language.

Strong's Concordance:

glóssa: the tongue, a language
Original Word: γλῶσσα, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: glóssa
Phonetic Spelling: (gloce-sah')
Short Definition: the tongue, a language, nation
Definition: the tongue, a language, a nation (usually distinguished by their speech).​

Thayer's Definition:

1. the tongue, a member of the body, an organ of speech
2. a tongue - the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations​

There is no evidence in classical or secular Greek, from the bible or any other literature, that glossa was used to mean an unknown language or ecstatic speech.

The word tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians is clearly not the thing in your mouth, so it must be languages. Now read Acts 2 again with the correct definition of glossa.

v4 "All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them."
v6 "each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"
v11 "we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God"​

They were miraculously speaking other foreign languages. The miracle was in the speaking of the disciples, not the hearing of the crowd. It was the disciples on whom the Spirit fell, not the crowd.

Replace 'tongues' with 'languages' in 1 Cor 14 and that too will make perfect sense.

 

[ZacharyB]

... saying that westerners are dumbed down is a back handed insult.

Many believers think Truth is an insult.

I have often said this applies to Americans:
purposely dumbed-down over 50+ years.
Research it for yourself.

Dost thou have ANY idea at all what's going on in the world?

 

[sdowney717]

You mentioned Swordsman was "biased" and that kept him "from reading thigns as they are written and leaving them alone without changing them" but he was spot on when he pointed out that you were the one who actually added to them. He pointed out in Acts 2 that interpretation was never mentioned there, but your doctrine relies upon interpretation being key. He pointed out that vs 4 says the they began to speak in other tongues...plural. And even pointed out as I had there are several verses that clearly state the people heard them speaking in their native languages...no interpreation, the people heard a language they understood.

All of this is also supported by the idea that languages, any language, can be learned. Language is defined as a repetition of sounds to make words and ultimately to allow communication. Tongues is synonymous with languages in the Bible. And this is also why Paul mentions interpreting...if someone is claiming to be speaking spiritually and you can't understand them...there best be an interpreter. And ultimately if they continue to interpret, someone else could learn the language.

If Apostle Paul says , 'I wish you all spoke with tongues', then your idea of it being useless, is not scriptural, since the entire point is that it edifies the believer.

4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

It is not that self edification is bad, it is fine, but edifying the church is better. But of course you will understand.

Also these tongues are not learned, since they are divinely given and spoken to God, and it is said the understanding does not exist regarding the meaning (speaks mysteries they are not understood, but they are legitimate), except if the Holy Spirit gives the interpretation.

And Jesus call them new tongues, so they are not existing tongues of men and can not have been therefore learned.

Mark 16:17
And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

And the hearing in a language they understood, is that not also part of the miracle, not just the speaking?

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

No doubt some will only go so far believing regarding miraculous events of the Holy Spirit, trying to shoo box such into the natural world an understanding, but the Holy Spirit and scripture is of supernatural origin and working power.

 

[sdowney717]

Downey,

Can you provide one example of God speaking in a language that man did not understand?
Can you provide one example of angels speaking in a language that men did not understand?

Also 1 Cor 14:2 you utilize without the context of the rest of that entire chapter.
vs 4 "one who speaks in a tongue edifies himself"
vs 12 "seek to abound for the edification of the church"
So we are not to seek after things that edify ourselves, but instead the church.
Even back in vs 5 "...unless he interprets (the one speaking in tongue), so that the church may receive edifying"

Paul even later says in vs 19 "in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also (there is that edification), rather than ten thousand words in a tongue"
So Paul would rather think up 5 words that he can use for the instruction of others in the church than to ramble off ten thousand words that are not understood by anyone.

Not sure the relevance of God speaking to man as new tongues are men speaking to God as the Holy Spirit gives them utterance.
John 12 shows not all understand God speaking.

27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify Your name.”

Then a voice came from heaven, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.”

29 Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, “An angel has spoken to Him.”

Men did not understand, to them God sounded like thunder or an angel, but not like God. Here though the voice from Heaven came from the Father, so then God and the understanding to these men was hidden from them.

And a few more, the voice of the Lord sounding as many waters, which man could not understand.


Ezekiel 43:2
And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east. His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory.

Revelation 1:15
His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

Revelation 14:2
And I heard a voice from heaven, like the voice of many waters, and like the voice of loud thunder. And I heard the sound of harpists playing their harps.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Many believers think Truth is an insult.

Where do you draw the line at Satire and Sarcasm (or Insults)?

I have often said this applies to Americans:
purposely dumbed-down over 50+ years.
Research it for yourself.

We have the internet today, so knowledge is not really limited to us anymore like it was back in the day (even though there were books).. It is just that one had to go to a library and search for the right information (Which was harder to find) or go to a book store.
Anyways, people today have the freedom of easy access to information (with the internet thru talking devices) to choose another path in medicine, health, education, etc. What is generally accepted by most people does not mean that they cannot do something different.

Dost thou have ANY idea at all what's going on in the world?

Do you think God wants us to be involved in the ways of the world?
Or do you think God wants us to be involved in His Word?


...

 

[ZacharyB]

Do you think God wants us to be involved in the ways of the world?

Yes, God wants believers to know what's going on in da world,
and thus be prepared for what is coming,
e.g. be prepared to follow directions from the precious Holy Spirit,
which could very well seem to be ridiculous,
if one did not know what was going on in da world.

Be there, or be square!
Be where? ... In the know.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, God wants believers to know what's going on in da world,
and thus be prepared for what is coming,
e.g. be prepared to follow directions from the precious Holy Spirit,
which could very well seem to be ridiculous,
if one did not know what was going on in da world.

Be there, or be square!
Be where? ... In the know.

First, one can tell they are in the last times by simply being around other people. They will be able to see that the love of many has waxed cold. When people read what you say here, do they get the impression that you love many people or do they get the impression that you are hateful instead? At least that is the impression I get when I read your posts in regards to Westerners in general (with words like calling them dumb, etc.). I mean, if I kept calling you dumb while we talked in person, would get the impression I was a nice and loving guy or would you think I was being rude and insulting?

Second, if one reads their Bible, one will not be able to help but to know if they are in the Tribulation or not. The sky turning black, the moon turning blood red, the water becoming poisoned, and demon like creatures coming up out of the ground, etc.

Third, what Scripture verses support your view that we are to keep up with the world news or the Christian version of it? What about when you are on missions in the jungle for months and there is no internet service?


...

 

[swordsman1]

If Apostle Paul says , 'I wish you all spoke with tongues', then your idea of it being useless, is not scriptural, since the entire point is that it edifies the believer.

4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

In this verse Paul is contrasting untranslated tongues (miraculously speaking a foreign language) with prophecy. Prophecy is far better because it edifies the church while untranslated tongues only edifies yourself which is not the purpose of spiritual gifts (1 Peter 4:10, 1 Cor 12:7). He is rebuking them for speaking in untranslated tongues not exhorting them.

5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Miraculously speaking in untranslated foreign languages is a useful evangelistic tool in the right setting. Eg in public places where many foreigners are present as on the day of Pentecost. But in the local church it is useless unless translated.

And Jesus call them new tongues, so they are not existing tongues of men and can not have been therefore learned.

Mark 16:17
And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues;

The new tongues in Mark 16.17 means new to them. eg "I leant a new language", not new to the world.

And the hearing in a language they understood, is that not also part of the miracle, not just the speaking?

5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language.

The disciples were speaking in foreign languages. You even highlighted one of the verses that tells us this:

"because everyone heard them speak in his own language"​

 

[Marvin Knox]

The problem you are having is with the word 'tongues'. Because today it is commonly used to mean the activity that charismatics practice you are automatically assuming that 'tongues' (Gr. glossa) has the same meaning in the bible. It is not................

No - I am not "automatically assuming" anything.

I have thought through these things long and hard.

For what my opinion is worth - I don't believe that all of the "ecstatic speech" that we hear spoken by charismatics currently is even a valid manifestation of the Holy Spirit. It may well be, in many instances, learned behavior from activities within the charismatic/Pentecostal world.

I won't make a lot of fun of some of the things I hear because I can't judge anyone else in the matter with total certainty.

(I often have asked myself - Why am I even hearing this kind of speech when there is not translation to go with it"?)

But I will say that the almost obviously "learned" syllables that I hear in Pentecostal circles are commented on by Pentecostals themselves quite often. "Shonda-rotie-tie-my-bow-tie" or something like that is often said as a sort of joke.

More than one charismatic/Pentecostal church in this world has a sign over the prayer room door which labels it the "Shonda" room.

There is no evidence in classical or secular Greek, from the bible or any other literature, that glossa was used to mean an unknown language or ecstatic speech.

"Ecstatic speech"? Really? Your anti-charismatic bias is showing again.

The scriptures make it clear that whatever tongues is (either in private use or in public use) it is NOT unknown speech and certainly it is NOT "ecstatic speech".

"I will pray in the spirit." "I will bless in the spirit." "I will sing in the spirit."

"The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets." 1 Corinthians 14:32

They were miraculously speaking other foreign languages.

Leave out the word "foreign" and I may agree with you. When you say foreign you are obviously limiting the words actually spoken to languages that are commonly known - such as Greek, Latin or whatever. That is not what is said in the passage.

The miracle was in the speaking of the disciples, not the hearing of the crowd.

Really? And you know that how?

"One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul." Acts 16:14

Replace 'tongues' with 'languages' in 1 Cor 14 and that too will make perfect sense.

It all makes perfect sense just the way it is. But then I've thought it through quite thoroughly.

It makes no sense to you, without first tinkering with it, because you are not hearing "with faith" IMO.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It is commonly thought that Paul had the gift of "tongues" - and that is correct apparently.

But for some reason in all of the story of Paul's missionary journeys is Acts we don't see him using it.

We don't have a story where Paul entered such and such a region and preached to them in their own language and the people were amazed and listened to him because of it.

Because the praise uttered forth by the disciples in Acts 2 was heard by certain listed people in the language to which they were born -- a quantum leap is usually made concerning the nature of tongues.

That leap is unwarranted.

And - to return to the idea of my other post - why on earth would the Holy Spirit give me a prophecy in Romanian when I was with a group of English speaking people or a group of French people or whatever (which needs translation for me and for those hearing)?

Is the Holy Spirit not able to speak English (and I would obviously not have to pray for an interpretation for that)?

Is the Holy Spirit not able to speak French through me for the other people if that's what the situation called for? Then no one would need translation at all. (Except me, I suppose. But then I could just ask the people present what the message was after giving it to them now couldn't I?)

Does God really speak only Romanian?

Why would an outsider think me mad or drunk because he came into my church heard me speaking English or French -- or Romanian for that matter?

The only way that this entire "tongues" and interpretation thing makes sense is somewhat in the way that charismatic/Pentecostals have interpreted it IMO.

(In spite of the unwise abuses and disobedience to the Word of God that we often hear them engaged in.)

 

[brotherjerry]

Downey,

What I am saying is that Paul is not saying it is "ok" to edify yourself. Edification should be for the church first, the individual least of all.

And as far as tongues...Paul also says that tongues are for a sign for the unbelievers. This obviously is not for self edification. Paul never says that tongues are for you while you are in your closet doing self edification.

The reason Paul says that "one who speaks in tongues does not speak to men but to God" is not a positive point but a negative point. Because Paul clearly says in vs 22 that tonges are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers. This is exactly what we saw in Acts 2, Paul would have been aware of the miralce of Acts 2. So since tongues are for a sign to unbelievers then doing it alone for prayer is not what tongues are for. Doing it in a church congregation of believers is not what tongues are for. They are for the unbeliever as they were in Acts 2. Paul goes on to mention as well that if your tongues is not in a language of men then the unbeliever that comes into church will think you are all crazy. But if we follow the Acts 2 understanding of tongues, then the unbeliever would walk into church and understand what was being said because it would be in his laguage, the preacher would be speaking in his language, even if the rest of the congregation could not understand him.

Paul expressly mentions having interpreters because because if someone is speaking a language, then there has to be another person to understand it and translate it. That is the very nature of language, that is the definition and formation of language that God created. Remember God created language, and even created the different languages.

And any language can be learned...again that is the very nature of language. No matter how much you want to deny that.

And when it said "they will speak with new tongues" any language you do not know how to speak and you suddenly speak in it, it is new to you is it not? Sorry the simplest understand is that they will speak in languages they never knew. Not something newly created, which if speaking on tongues is speaking the language of God....then it has been around longer than any other language so it could not be new.

Not sure the relevance of God speaking to man as new tongues are men speaking to God as the Holy Spirit gives them utterance.

So no example of God speaking to man in any other language other than what man could understand...or even any example of angels, or man speaking in a language that other men could not understand but God answering or acknowledging what was supposedly said. You have no examples of communication going on in anything other than a language of man in the Bible.

John 12...the understanding was with the meaning...not the actual words spoken. There is not one example of God or Jesus speaking and the people being talked to saying "I did not understand a word that came out of His mouth, it sounded like gibberish".
And verses 27-29 you cited. Funny it was apparently recognized as a voice...even Christ explained what the purpose of the voice was for....and He did not say it was only for those who understood what was said. And we never see mention that there were people standing around confused. So saying "it thundered" was not a description of the noise that was heard, but the volume of the voice that was heard. You even cited the linking reference for Rev 14:2
Your other reference in Ezekiel and Rev 1.... Describing what a voice sounds like does not mean it was not understood. If someone said your voice sounded raspy like gravel being rubbed together that does not mean the words you said were not understood, or that you were speaking in some strange language. You are making implications that are simply not present in the text.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Marvin said previously, "I have never spoken in tongues for a sign either for myself or for unbelievers."

marvin,...................Then you have done so against what Paul says in the Bible they are for?
"So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers..."

I meant to clarify this point and got sidetracked.

Since you've brought the "sign to unbelievers" thing up again with downey - I thought this a good time to revisit what you said about what I said.

What I was saying was that I did not seek tongues from God because I required some sign from Him to increase my faith.

I sought more of the Holy Spirit and the practice tongues that came along with Him of my own will privately because I am exercising faith not to increase my faith through something that would serve as a sign to me.

Nor do I speak in tongues for the purpose of being a sign for unbelievers. If God gives me a message for them and I speak in tongues with interpretation supplied by God - that would be another thing.

But my obedience to the Lord in praying in the spirit is not done because I want to give a sign to an unbeliever. That may be why people on T.V. do it out loud without interpretation against what God commanded them not to do. They may be doing it to impress unbelievers (or even, more likely, other believers - and potential doners).

If they were doing it within their own and God's hearing only because no interpretation was given --- then they would be in obedience to God and not disobedience as they are clearly.

I will to pray and sing in the spirit and build myself up. out of obedience.

I don't do it as a "sign" for anyone.

Speaking in tongues out loud is for a sign for unbelievers only when there is interpretation supplied by God. When there is not interpretation and it is done out loud - the only "sign" it gives to the unbeliever is that you appear to be either mad or drunk.

I hope that clears that up.

 

[sdowney717]

It is commonly thought that Paul had the gift of "tongues" - and that is correct apparently.

But for some reason in all of the story of Paul's missionary journeys is Acts we don't see him using it.

We don't have a story where Paul entered such and such a region and preached to them in their own language and the people were amazed and listened to him because of it.

Because the praise uttered forth by the disciples in Acts 2 was heard by certain listed people in the language to which they were born -- a quantum leap is usually made concerning the nature of tongues.

That leap is unwarranted.

And - to return to the idea of my other post - why on earth would the Holy Spirit give me a prophecy in Romanian when I was with a group of English speaking people or a group of French people or whatever (which needs translation for me and for those hearing)?

Is the Holy Spirit not able to speak English (and I would obviously not have to pray for an interpretation for that)?

Is the Holy Spirit not able to speak French through me for the other people if that's what the situation called for? Then no one would need translation at all. (Except me, I suppose. But then I could just ask the people present what the message was after giving it to them now couldn't I?)

Does God really speak only Romanian?

Why would an outsider think me mad or drunk because he came into my church heard me speaking English or French -- or Romanian for that matter?

The only way that this entire "tongues" and interpretation thing makes sense is somewhat in the way that charismatic/Pentecostals have interpreted it IMO.

(In spite of the unwise abuses and disobedience to the Word of God that we often hear them engaged in.)

Paul did speak in tongues more than them all.

1 Cor 14
18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

So it is not disobedience even in church to speak in tongues. Just that it does not edify the church unless interpreted.
Paul does say he would rather speak with the understanding to teach others. Paul is expressing a preference not a forbidden activity.
We really do not know if Paul spoke in tongues and received interpretations and prophesied in church, but seeing what he wrote, I think Paul did. The believers would have come together, and there would speaking in tongues, I am firmly convinced this occurred. There is mention of this also in the early writings of the church from various leaders at that time.
I too can speak in tongues, I have in my younger days, been given words to speak aloud when meeting with fellow believers for prayers and praise and bible study. I have had hands laid on me and been prophesied over. Some things I shared with others that were really only for me, I realized this later on. When Paul wrote of being taken up to the third heaven and being told things that can not be spoken, these were not to be shared even with fellow believers. Some spiritual things are meant to be experienced only between yourself and God and no one else.

Today I was thinking of speaking in tongues, and as the word says ' speaking as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance.'
These words come from the Holy Spirit to you and you speak them back to God. We are alive to God in the Spirit, His Holy Spirit and ours is in a divine communication, we are setup as lights on a hill, beacons, the Holy Spirit shines out from within our innermost being. And so we are reflecting the Lord's glory from within us just as did Moses coming down off the mountain after spending time with God, yet it was fading.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

We see this as a reflection in a darkened mirror, it is not fully clear, the we prophesy in part and we know in part.
"9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part."

We look into the mirror, but the mirror belongs to God. God is reflecting himself through us back to His own self, we are being made into His image, that of Christ, being joined to the Lord as one in His Spirit, I Cor 6:17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

1 Cor 13
12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.