Tongues as Initial Evidence

[lismore]

When my brother was serving a missionary term in Malawi in the mid-90’s he knelt beside a poor Malawian man who was praying praises to God in beautiful English. Not wanting to interrupt him my brother waited until he finished praying and then asked him a question. The man looked blankly at him, so my brother asked it again, blank, again, blank. Then the Malawian pastor standing close by leaned over and informed my brother, “He doesn’t speak English.”

​

It's absolutely amazing and unambiguous when that happens!

Praise God.

 

[K2K]

Sorry, I'm frustrated. Several posters here seem to be trying to pull the fastest gun in the West routine.

My experience of tongues have mainly been that they're a real language, given by God to communicate the gospel to people as it was in Acts 2.

I was at a dinner meeting with a speaker where the speaker and others spoke in tongues. There was a Romanian guy and a French guy there who heard the gospel in their own languages and got saved. I used to study French at school so I knew a bit and also that this was supernatural level of the language.

AN old lady I used to fellowship with got a muslim saved because she was given a message for him in Arabic. An old lady who had never been out of Scotland in her life!




I think there might well also be a use for tongues like prayer language and private edification, not necessarily in a corporate setting. 2 uses perhaps.





Peter's sermon afterwards on the mighty deeds of God is a good gospel message

1 cor 14 also says:

9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air

When an unbeliever comes in and someone speaks in tongues and he hears the gospel in his own language it is a mighty suprenatural sign for him.

When and if we hear from God [and God is Spirit] we hear from Him in that small voice, but that small voice is really thoughts coming to us from Him. If that small voice gets really loud, it can sound audible.

Now there is an assumption that is made that many people don't seem to understand. When someone speaks in tongues, they speak in the language of angels [according to the scriptures], so is it possible for a single person to be speaking a single thing with an audible voice and God then giving the interpretation to a number of various different people who speak different languages, and each hear what that one person was speaking in their own language?

Read closely what is written at the time of pentecost:

Acts 1:6 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.

So it doesn't say that those speaking in tongues were actually speaking in different languages, but that each one in the crowd was hearing whatever was being spoken in their own language. This can happen because God can give the interpretation to us in what we call the small voice lound enough that our mind thinks the impression are audible.

So if we are speaking in the language of angels, it is not the language of people is it?

Just for a supporting testimony, I have at times been listening to the Lord, and someone started speaking in tongues, and I got a word for word interpretaion as the person was speaking.

I'll admit, that during those times I was able to understand that the person speaking in tongue was speaking a language that I did not know, but was clearly understanding it in a language I did know by the small voice of the Lord. Yet also I have had some cases where I thought I was actually hearing something with my phyical ears and it turned out that is was not with my physical ears but rather I was hearing it with my spiritual ears.

So for me, I think that there were people at the time of the pentecost that were speaking in tongues, yet everyone was hearing them each in their own language, not because the people speaking in tongues were actually speaking in all the different languages but because the Spirit of God was giving the interpretation. Kind of like being at the United Nations where you can pick up a set of head phones in which the interpretation of what is being said at the front in coming through an interpreter in your own language.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Sorry, I'm frustrated. Several posters here seem to be trying to pull the fastest gun in the West routine.

My experience of tongues have mainly been that they're a real language, given by God to communicate the gospel to people as it was in Acts 2.

I was at a dinner meeting with a speaker where the speaker and others spoke in tongues. There was a Romanian guy and a French guy there who heard the gospel in their own languages and got saved. I used to study French at school so I knew a bit and also that this was supernatural level of the language.

AN old lady I used to fellowship with got a muslim saved because she was given a message for him in Arabic. An old lady who had never been out of Scotland in her life!




I think there might well also be a use for tongues like prayer language and private edification, not necessarily in a corporate setting. 2 uses perhaps.





Peter's sermon afterwards on the mighty deeds of God is a good gospel message

1 cor 14 also says:

9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air

When an unbeliever comes in and someone speaks in tongues and he hears the gospel in his own language it is a mighty suprenatural sign for him.

Sorry, I'm frustrated.

Thank you . . . I forgive you.

My experience of tongues have mainly been that they're a real language, given by God to communicate the gospel to people as it was in Acts 2.

I agree that God CAN use them that way . . . I have heard anectdotal evidence, like yours, that support a usage like this.

My thing is, that

1. The OVERALL use of the gifts is to be for the edification of the Body, that is what 1 cor 12-14 teaches. Tongues is not an exception.

2. The exegesis of the passages dont lend a valid concept of the content being the "gospel" . . . but of praise, which is CONSISTENT with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 14

3. If tongues are to be evangelical (for lack of a better term) . . . or, for spreading the Gospel, then they are not PRIMARILY for the church, and the concept of "these people will not listen" in this citation

1 Cor 14:21-22
"BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME," says the Lord. 22 So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers;
NASU

MAKES THOSE WHO HEAR DISOBEDIENT to the content of the tongue.



So, CAN tongues be for evangelism? sure. Is this to be the primary use of tongues? NO. The primary use of tongues is for edification of the CHURCH as in here

1 Cor 14:16-17
16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified.
NASU

the edification of fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord in the public worship service.

I think there might well also be a use for tongues like prayer language and private edification, not necessarily in a corporate setting. 2 uses perhaps.

Yes, two uses. But the ontology of tongues remains the same. No one understands. In your case, with the french, I would not classify this as the same tongues as Paul speaks of. Paul's is UNINTELLIGBLE by his own definition.

I would say that either

1. You were also given the interpretation, or opened to hear it . . . in which case u were edified and built up by the Spirit's move

or

2. It is a whole different gifting of the Spirit. Which is entirely possible as God can do whatever He wants and the list of gifts that we do have is most def. not exclusive.

Peter's sermon afterwards on the mighty deeds of God is a good gospel message

Agreed . . . but Peter's sermon is an EXPOSITION . . . not a declaration of praise. Peter's sermon is superfluous and NOT NEEDED if the Gospel was already spoken in the tongue . . . why did they not respond from the GATE with "what shall we do?" to the tongue if the gospel was in the tongue? . . . no they did not respond with "what shall we do" because the Gospel wasnt in the tongue but in the sermon.

9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air

When an unbeliever comes in and someone speaks in tongues and he hears the gospel in his own language it is a mighty suprenatural sign for him.

I agree with your concept . . . it is mighty. The problem tho Lis is the context of the passage. Unbelievers CANNOT UNDERSTAND PAUL'S TONGUES BECAUSE NO ONE UNDERSTANDS.

It takes a supernatural GIFT of the Spirit in the gift of interpretation to understand it.

Further, watch this:

1 Cor 14:23-24
23 Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?
NASU


Why would they say that everyone is mad if they understand the tongue? In order for ur take to work, they would enter, and they would hear everyone speaking in their native tongue . . . why would that cause them to say "u are all CRAZY" . . . foreign language encounters in Corinth are not uncommon with the major cultural hub that Corinth is . . . see?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

When my brother was serving a missionary term in Malawi in the mid-90’s he knelt beside a poor Malawian man who was praying praises to God in beautiful English. Not wanting to interrupt him my brother waited until he finished praying and then asked him a question. The man looked blankly at him, so my brother asked it again, blank, again, blank. Then the Malawian pastor standing close by leaned over and informed my brother, “He doesn’t speak English.”

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.​

That is AWESOME . . . and I would venture to say that the Malawian man understood the tongue to be his usual "prayer" tongue . . . and had a german man been there with ur brother, he would have heard the SAME THING at the SAME TIME in perfect german.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

When and if we hear from God [and God is Spirit] we hear from Him in that small voice, but that small voice is really thoughts coming to us from Him. If that small voice gets really loud, it can sound audible.

Now there is an assumption that is made that many people don't seem to understand. When someone speaks in tongues, they speak in the language of angels [according to the scriptures], so is it possible for a single person to be speaking a single thing with an audible voice and God then giving the interpretation to a number of various different people who speak different languages, and each hear what that one person was speaking in their own language?

Read closely what is written at the time of pentecost:

Acts 1:6 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.

So it doesn't say that those speaking in tongues were actually speaking in different languages, but that each one in the crowd was hearing whatever was being spoken in their own language. This can happen because God can give the interpretation to us in what we call the small voice lound enough that our mind thinks the impression are audible.

So if we are speaking in the language of angels, it is not the language of people is it?

Just for a supporting testimony, I have at times been listening to the Lord, and someone started speaking in tongues, and I got a word for word interpretaion as the person was speaking.

I'll admit, that during those times I was able to understand that the person speaking in tongue was speaking a language that I did not know, but was clearly understanding it in a language I did know by the small voice of the Lord. Yet also I have had some cases where I thought I was actually hearing something with my phyical ears and it turned out that is was not with my physical ears but rather I was hearing it with my spiritual ears.

So for me, I think that there were people at the time of the pentecost that were speaking in tongues, yet everyone was hearing them each in their own language, not because the people speaking in tongues were actually speaking in all the different languages but because the Spirit of God was giving the interpretation. Kind of like being at the United Nations where you can pick up a set of head phones in which the interpretation of what is being said at the front in coming through an interpreter in your own language.

Amen.

There are actually a TON of internal textual proofs of this too

1. they gathered to ONE sound (phones) not a plethora

2. the ioudian is original, IOW u have judean surprised to hear judeans speak in judean

3. What they HEARD was dialektos NOT glossa . . . IOW glossa is what was spoken, dialketos is what was heard (in Greek)

4. The usage of pronouns and groupings points to this same interpretation

5. Paul's whole concept of tongues is a different tongue speak than what is in Acts 2 if it were merely human languages spoken and heard (and the points about the unintelligibility of 1 Cor 14 are many)

6. Acts 10 and 11 Peter says that the SAME THING as Acts 2 is what happened in 10 . . . but we have NO GOSPEL PRESENTATION BY THE SPEAKERS IN ACTS 10 as the audience in Acts 10 is BELIEVERS (Peter and his group)

7. Acts 19 is the same as above . . . Paul doesnt need the Gospel presented to him, so if tongues are a gospel presentation, then Acts 19 is needless

good post bro

 

[K2K]

There is one other thing that might be worth pointing out. A quick reading of the account in Acts might lead someone to thinking that every person heard those speaking in tongues in their own language, but it was not every person, but rather every devout person that heard in their own language.

Acts 2:13 But others were mocking and saying, "They are full of sweet wine."

In the same way, only those devote people willing to listen to the voice of the Lord will hear the voice of the Lord [get the interpretation]. Those unbelievers even then, mock the speaking in tongues, because they can not get an interpretation from the small voice of the Lord.

So the speaking in tongues because a sign to those not willing to listen to the Lord that they were not part of the devout men from every nation. Yet the believers heard from the Lord in a language they could understand. Thus the Scriptures are fulfilled.

BY MEN OF STRANGE TONGUES AND BY THE LIPS OF STRANGERS I WILL SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE, AND EVEN SO THEY WILL NOT LISTEN TO ME. [1 Cor 14:21, Is 28:11]

So when I hear someone else speaking in tongues, I will usually turn to the Lord and get an interpretation. Sometimes He has told me the interpretation word for word, and sometimes He tells me just a broad meaning.

When I get just a boad interpretation, it usually means that I don't need the full meaning. For example; if someone is praying in tongues for another person, how much do I really need to know? Yet regardless, I can get an interpretation concerning what I do need to know if I ask the Lord.

1 Cor 14 :13 Therefore let one who speaks in tongue pray that he may interpret.

And we know that if we are following the Lord, we will get whatever we ask for. So if we are following the Lord, don't we do what is written in the Scriptures and pray [ask the Lord] for and interpretation. So whenever the Spirit manifest Himself in the speaking of tongue through me, I ask for an interpretation, according to what is written in the Scriptures.

I couple of times I was singing in tongues, and asked for the interpretaion and instantly the song broke into English. Once I found I was singing a new song, and another time I found I was singing and old hymm but slowly so I did not recongize it while singing it in tongues.

 

[K2K]

Amen.

There are actually a TON of internal textual proofs of this too

1. they gathered to ONE sound (phones) not a plethora

2. the ioudian is original, IOW u have judean surprised to hear judeans speak in judean

3. What they HEARD was dialektos NOT glossa . . . IOW glossa is what was spoken, dialketos is what was heard (in Greek)

4. The usage of pronouns and groupings points to this same interpretation

5. Paul's whole concept of tongues is a different tongue speak than what is in Acts 2 if it were merely human languages spoken and heard (and the points about the unintelligibility of 1 Cor 14 are many)

6. Acts 10 and 11 Peter says that the SAME THING as Acts 2 is what happened in 10 . . . but we have NO GOSPEL PRESENTATION BY THE SPEAKERS IN ACTS 10 as the audience in Acts 10 is BELIEVERS (Peter and his group)

7. Acts 19 is the same as above . . . Paul doesnt need the Gospel presented to him, so if tongues are a gospel presentation, then Acts 19 is needless

good post bro

Thank you for the additional information. Obviously you have examined this much more that I have. I appreciate the information!

 

[JEBrady]

When my brother was serving a missionary term in Malawi in the mid-90’s he knelt beside a poor Malawian man who was praying praises to God in beautiful English. Not wanting to interrupt him my brother waited until he finished praying and then asked him a question. The man looked blankly at him, so my brother asked it again, blank, again, blank. Then the Malawian pastor standing close by leaned over and informed my brother, “He doesn’t speak English.”

~Jim

Did your brother say he heard an interpretation or was the Malawi speaking physical English?

 

[K2K]

Did your brother say he heard an interpretation or was the Malawi speaking physical English?

Could he have not know? All things are possible with God. God could have certainly had the other man speak in an English language, or God could have had his brother hear what God wanted him to hear and the man not known.

The point is, that often I have seen people scoff at speaking in tongues because it was not in a language they understand. It was the scoofers who thought the devout drunk, and the scoffers who do not hear the small voice of the Lord either. Else they would turn to the Lord.

With there ears they barely hear, and with their eyes they don't see - it is written. Certainly that is not talking about physical eyes and ears. I believe all things are possible with God, and especially that I can go to Him and hear an answer and a interpretation. I believe that because I hear it. So if someone writes that they only believe a speaking in tongues is valid if some other person reconizes the language, what is the problem; the speaking in tongues or that persons belief in God?

Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth; For the Lord speaks, Sons I have reared and broughtup, But they have revolted against Me. An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master's manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand. [Is 1:1-3]

God is Spirit, so listen with your spiritual ears and believe. How do you recieve the Spirit? Isn't it by hearing with faith?

 

[JEBrady]

Could he have not know? All things are possible with God. God could have certainly had the other man speak in an English language, or God could have had his brother hear what God wanted him to hear and the man not known.

The point is, that often I have seen people scoff at speaking in tongues because it was not in a language they understand. It was the scoofers who thought the devout drunk, and the scoffers who do not hear the small voice of the Lord either. Else they would turn to the Lord.

With there ears they barely hear, and with their eyes they don't see - it is written. Certainly that is not talking about physical eyes and ears. I believe all things are possible with God, and especially that I can go to Him and hear an answer and a interpretation. I believe that because I hear it. So if someone writes that they only believe a speaking in tongues is valid if some other person reconizes the language, what is the problem; the speaking in tongues or that persons belief in God?

Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth; For the Lord speaks, Sons I have reared and broughtup, But they have revolted against Me. An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master's manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand. [Is 1:1-3]

God is Spirit, so listen with your spiritual ears and believe. How do you recieve the Spirit? Isn't it by hearing with faith?

I asked Jim because I wanted to know the original witness. There's a difference between the physical hearing and an interpretation. Big difference. Not a near thing at all.

 

[K2K]

I asked Jim because I wanted to know the original witness. There's a difference between the physical hearing and an interpretation. Big difference. Not a near thing at all.

There is a difference but can you tell?

There was a day when I decided to take a nap and laid down on the couch in my apartment to do so. As I laid down I started hearing Christian music praising God. So I got back up because I wanted to know which on of the surrounding apartments it was coming from.

Yet when I got up I couldn't hear it. So I laid back down, and there is was again. I laid there for a minute listening to it and considering what had happen. I was hearing it clearly, so I got back up and went close to each wall listening for the music.

It was nowhere to be heard. So I laid back down again, and again I could hear it clearly. I listen a little longer trying to figure out the possiblities. I got up one more time and put my ear to each of the walls in my apartment, but again could not hear the music no matter what I tried until I laid back down one more time. Again I heard the music and went to sleep listening to the praise music from no where. What else was I to do.

This was not the only time I have heard the spiritual as if from my physical ears.

We need to becareful that we do not discard the possibilties for God working. As I already pointed out, [and was glade that someone else had already noticed this in the Scriptures], at the orginal falling of the Spirit at the time of Pentecost it was not that everyone was speaking in different tongues but that everyone was hearing in there own.

That does not mean that this man was hearing the small voice. God surely could have had the one man speaking in English, but just as surely He coould have had the other man understanding in English and not aware what was happening.

What I have seen though, is that the Lord clearly wants us listening to Him and believing. If tongues is a language of angels, how do angels normally communicate with you? There are many that have entertained angels an do not know it. Angels are spirits, and the angels that serve the Lord sing praises to the Lord.

Acts 14:41 "BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH; FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU."

Can someone that spends much time listening to the small voice of the Lord not understand that it is that communication with the Lord which is important. So the gifts of tongues is a sign to the unbeliever, that they are not listening to the small voice of the Lord, and not to believers because faith comes by hearing and hearing by a word from the Lord.

 

[K2K]

After posting the last thread, the Lord pointed something out to me. He asked me, "So which of the men was actually hearing from Him; The man speaking in tongues which the other heard in English, or the man having to to hear a message through the man speaking in tongues?"

Then He reminded me of these verses:

Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever of an ungifted mand enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all.

He then said, "Why did I do things the way they were done?"

He didn't give me the answer, but why did God create the situation where the one man heard the other speaking in English, thought the man clearly did not know English. The message clearly seemed to be for the man hearing in English, wasn't it? So is it someone that knows and hears from the Lord regularly that needs a message from God through someone else or the one that is not hearing and believing in God?

 

[JimB]

Hmmm. So, you actually carry on running conversations with God (?) about trivial theological issues like this?

Interesting.

I guess there is no room for disagreement with the Almighty. Either we accept your revelation or we are just wrong.

But if, in fact, you did not hear from God but just thought you did then would you say you have just taken the Lord’s name in vain?

Personally, and for the record, I do not like people pulling the God card like this in these discussions. It leaves no room for disagreement or even discussion.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.​

​

 

[Always in His Presence]

Hmmm. So, you actually carry on running conversations with God (?) about trivial theological issues like this?

You mean you don't?

 

[Svt4Him]

You mean you don't?

Nope, God is only concerned about really important things, which keeps Him really busy.

 

[K2K]

Hmmm. So, you actually carry on running conversations with God (?) about trivial theological issues like this?

Interesting.

I guess there is no room for disagreement with the Almighty. Either we accept your revelation or we are just wrong.

But if, in fact, you did not hear from God but just thought you did then would you say you have just taken the Lord’s name in vain?

Personally, and for the record, I do not like people pulling the God card like this in these discussions. It leaves no room for disagreement or even discussion.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.​

Maybe you don't understand. He was reproving me not you, at least as far as I could see. You wrote that there was a very big difference between hearing the actual voice of the man speaking in English and getting an interpretation from the Lord while the other man was speaking in tongues. You were right!! There is a hugh difference in whether the man was hearing an interpretation from the Lord or just God speaking through the other man.

The difference is this. If the man was getting an interpretation while the other man was speaking, then he was a believer able to hear from the Lord for himself. If instead he was getting a message from God through the man speaking in tongues of English, then the man was not hearing from God himself, so the tongues and related word of knowledge from the Lord was a sign to him that God was real and he needed to be like the man speaking in tongues.

By the way; I don't expect anyone to just believe what I say is from the Lord is actually from the Lord, I expect them to take it to the Lord themselves and ask Him about it. Of course to do that you do have to believe that the Lord is always with you and able to speak to you. Since He is called Wonderful Counseler, should you be able to get an answer for yourself?

As for me, I don't mind someone telling me something they heard something from the Lord, because that almost always get me to go to the Lord, and that almost always means I'll learn something. The Lord reproves those He loves. He also tells those He loves that He loves them. What does He tell you?

They say, “I KNOW, I KNOW, BUT WHO DO THEY KNOW?”

 

[Tenacity]

Hmmm. So, you actually carry on running conversations with God (?) about trivial theological issues like this?

It is so important that we continually carry on running conversations with God about every area of our life. It is part of the 'pray without ceasing' thing and the 'in all your ways acknowledge him' thing. imo

As far as the Acts 2 reference. I am not pushing any agenda or pre-conceived idea. I tend to shy away from the notion of tongues being the initial evidence thing. I came to the conclusion that the miracle was as much in the hearing as in the speaking when I read that scripture 32 yrs ago while a youth in the Baptist Church.

At 14 yrs old I read the scripture and I saw that it said something different than what our family bible story book said. I read and it and re-read it and came up with the same thing every time. The fact that the writer repeated the statement 3 times for clarification made me think that he wanted it to be clear that each individual was hearing the group speak in their own language.

Later I was taught that speaking in tongues was for preaching the gospel but Paul said that when you speak in tongues no one understands... So you should pray to get the interpretation.

This is my practice: I pray in the tongues and sometimes I receive the interpretation immediately but often it comes after a day or two of praying. What I am doing is entering into a place of worship with the Father that is far beyond my natural intellect. Through this communion with the Father he brings things into me that I would not have been able to receive through the limitations of my natural way of thinking.

I don't know what language Balaam spoke but I do know that his ride was given the ability to make his thoughts known to Balaam. I don't think that Balaam's donkey was a christian or a heathen. He was just simply a vessel used by God.

Speaking of Balaam... Balaam is a good example of someone who had a gifting from God but his heart was not right. Balaam was a prophet. He was not a false prophet. Balaam did prophecy what God wanted him to prophecy but his heart was not right with God.

The donkey spoke donkey. He could only make grunts and braying sounds that meant little to Balaam. If the donkey was going to be able to communicate with Balaam he was going to have to step up his linguistic capabilities a notch or two.

People speak people languages. In our attempts to worship, praise, and communicate with God our native languages are nothing more than grunts and braying sounds in comparison with the grandeur and overwhelming intellect of our Father God. The Father wants us to step it up a bit. We can't even come close to giving God the praise that he deserves through our own intellectual and linguistic abilities. This is why it is so important that we ...

"worship Him in spirit and in truth"

God is not a donkey or a human... he is spirit.

 

[Tenacity]

Hmmm. So, you actually carry on running conversations with God (?) about trivial theological issues like this?

Interesting.

I guess there is no room for disagreement with the Almighty. Either we accept your revelation or we are just wrong.

But if, in fact, you did not hear from God but just thought you did then would you say you have just taken the Lord’s name in vain?

Personally, and for the record, I do not like people pulling the God card like this in these discussions. It leaves no room for disagreement or even discussion.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.​

The more I read this the more my heart breaks. This is sadness. Such deep deep grieving.

How dare any of us post anything on this forum that we have not taken to the Father first. We who call ourselves 'believers' or 'christian' or identify ourselves in any way with Jesus surely must be walking in fellowship with Jesus and hearing from him before we post our comments here.

Isn't our motivation love?

Don't we want to be full of Spirit of God and bring his life into our everyday dealings?

Isn't communion with our loving heavenly Father our greatest desire?

and... doesn't communion involve communication?

What has happened to us?

 

[JEBrady]

Maybe you don't understand. He was reproving me not you, at least as far as I could see. You wrote that there was a very big difference between hearing the actual voice of the man speaking in English and getting an interpretation from the Lord while the other man was speaking in tongues. You were right!! There is a hugh difference in whether the man was hearing an interpretation from the Lord or just God speaking through the other man.

The difference is this. If the man was getting an interpretation while the other man was speaking, then he was a believer able to hear from the Lord for himself. If instead he was getting a message from God through the man speaking in tongues of English, then the man was not hearing from God himself, so the tongues and related word of knowledge from the Lord was a sign to him that God was real and he needed to be like the man speaking in tongues.

By the way; I don't expect anyone to just believe what I say is from the Lord is actually from the Lord, I expect them to take it to the Lord themselves and ask Him about it. Of course to do that you do have to believe that the Lord is always with you and able to speak to you. Since He is called Wonderful Counseler, should you be able to get an answer for yourself?

As for me, I don't mind someone telling me something they heard something from the Lord, because that almost always get me to go to the Lord, and that almost always means I'll learn something. The Lord reproves those He loves. He also tells those He loves that He loves them. What does He tell you?

They say, “I KNOW, I KNOW, BUT WHO DO THEY KNOW?”

This is JimB's post, not mine. You're mixing us up in your response.

 

[JimB]

The more I read this the more my heart breaks. This is sadness. Such deep deep grieving.

How dare any of us post anything on this forum that we have not taken to the Father first. We who call ourselves 'believers' or 'christian' or identify ourselves in any way with Jesus surely must be walking in fellowship with Jesus and hearing from him before we post our comments here.

Isn't our motivation love?

Don't we want to be full of Spirit of God and bring his life into our everyday dealings?

Isn't communion with our loving heavenly Father our greatest desire?

and... doesn't communion involve communication?

What has happened to us?

Hmmm. Does this apply to you, too, T.? Did you “take this to the Father” before you posted it or was it just an emotional response? And how could you possibly know if I did or did not take this to the Father first? Did God tell you that?

Personally, I think you are assuming a lot.

But for the record, I am opposed to anyone pulling the God card and saying “God told me” this or that about a theological issue under discussion in an open forum. Saying such things may or may not be true (who knows?) and will invariably stop a discussion in its tracks.

Now, at this point I could say that God told me to tell you this … and how would you know for certain? If I did say such a thing, it would certainly end the discussion (in my favor) unless you were bold enough to reject my presumptuousness.

~Jim

I believe in miracles but I don’t depend on them.​

​