Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

rrobsr

Active Member
Jan 9, 2017
172
88
73
Julian, CA
Visit site
✟26,828.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh, you are right about this. I learned that and it jumped out at me when I did. The reason the scriptures say, to one teaching, to another prophecy, etc., is because of the desires of the heart of the individual. So people will be drawn to earnestly desire a specific gift or two to operate in and not the others. Does that make sense. I think it does. But we do all have the gift of all nine gifts to each and every one. They choose what they like.

Good observation. Yes, people do choose. God never forces.

One
gift (holy spirit) with nine manifestations is the actual text. The usual translation of 1 Corinthians 12:1 is misleading. The words "spiritual gifts" is better translated as "spiritual matters" according to the Greek. The Aramaic also agrees with that. In other words, 1 Corinthians 12 is talking about more than than gifts. It is talking about spiritual matters in general of which gifts are only part and manifestations are another part. They are two different things. It's a fine point but worth noting. It does make a difference.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Divide
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I hope he wasn't saying that. Yikes! Did Cornelius become an apostle??? No, so that would be crazy to say such a thing.

With unmistakable clarity Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:22..........
“Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not . . . ”.

The word “sign” (Gr. semeion) in the New Testament means that with the conveying of a Divinely-given message to unbelievers. This is the emphasis in John 20:30, 31 where we read..........
“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name.”

The signs (miracles) were never performed without purpose, but because of the message they communicated.

What then does that mean? It means that the true function of the gift of tongues is
for a sign . . . to them that believe not.”
To exercise the gift when unbelievers were not present would be exercising the gift above the purpose for which it was given------and that is what is seen in todays churches!!!!!

The gifts were never given for the self-satisfaction or self-glory of the recipients. The one upon whom the gift was bestowed was merely an instrument through whom God wanted to communicate His message.

Speaking in tongues was no mark of spirituality, because the Corinthian church was unspiritual, un-Biblical having manifested carnality (3:1-3) and even gross sin (5:1). And so Paul points them to a Scripture they should have known, saying in 12:21..........
“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord”.

This purpose of the gift of tongues, namely to communicate God’s message to Israel, is verified in the three passages in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned.

FIRST.......In Acts 2 tongues-speaking was used as a missionary or evangelistic tool in fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11. There was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel. God overcame the language barrier through the miracle-gift of tongue.
Jews speaking to Jews about the Jew, Jesus.

SECOND....Acts 10:46 the second mention of speaking in tongues occurs. The occasion again was to communicate the Gospel, this time for the purpose of effecting the conversion of Cornelius and his house. This event cannot be totally disassociated from Pentecost because Peter, when relating this experience, said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). At the house of Cornelius tongues-speaking was a sign to Jews at a time when the Gospel was being communicated with Jews speaking to Gentiles about the Jew, Jesus. (Acts 10:44-46).

THIRD.......Acts 19:6 there appears the third passage in Acts in which speaking in tongues is recorded. Again its purpose was missionary and evangelistic. Again the purpose for speaking in tongues is obvious, namely, to communicate the Gospel message.

These are the only instances of tongues-speaking recorded in the Bible, except the passage in First Corinthians. None of the later Epistles mention speaking in tongues. The gift was used only in the transitional period between Law and Grace. The sign gifts continued through the period of the Apostles while the New Testament was in the process of being written.

I know you guys do not want to hear this but none of the later Epistles mention speaking in tongues. It is clear that the gift was used only in the transitional period between Law and Grace. The sign gifts continued through the period of the Apostles while the New Testament was in the process of being written.

If one could find an Apostle living today who saw the bodily-resurrected Lord Jesus, he would not be exercising the sign gifts because he would have what you and I have, and what Peter, Paul and John did not have, the completed written Word of God. Now that we have the Scriptures we do not need miracles to confirm God’s message.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Where in scripture does God answer prayer with a "no." Does 1 John 5:14-15 give no as a possibility? No, if we pray His will we will have what we prayed for. Did the woman pray God's will that He get her on that ship? No. It was not His will that she get on a doomed ship, so He didn't answer her prayer according to her will. The point is to seek God first to find out what His will is. John 15:7 tells us that then when we pray (when His spoken words to us are prayed), then we shall have whatever that was. That takes a conversation.

Of course. Mary and Martha prayed and asked Jesus to heal Lazarus, but He did not heal him and Lazarus died.

2 Sam 7 - God said "no" to David's desire to build a temple.

Elijah, 1 Kings 19. He prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, Lord," he said. "Take my life. I am no better than my ancestors." God said "no" because He had an adventure planned for Elijah!

Jeremiah 11:11......
"So now I, the Lord, warn them that I am going to bring destruction on them, and they will not escape. And when they cry out to me for help, I will not listen to them."
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't know what you think my "agenda" is except to teach the same thing as Paul is. We actually agree on what you have just said. By themselves, tongues are not made to be understood by anyone. The only way to understand them is through interpretation of tongues. Do you agree, or continue to disagree? I am not saying the opposite. In some places Paul is showing us that tongues is a blessing to us, but the prayer language, is not for teaching. So to God, we should pray in our prayer language a lot. But in church, that is where we need to concentrate on learning.

I have gone into great detail on this, so you are either completely misunderstanding my plain English, or just scanning my posts to find something to disagree with. Even when I'm agreeing with you. :doh:

I have no reason or need to argue with you sister. It is clear that on several issues I have had to disagree with your comments but I hope that I have done that in love and understanding. If not, I do apologize to you.

When I read the Scriptures, I come to the conclusion that Paul's agenda was to correct the "carnality" of those in the Corinthian church. They were doing several things that were wrong and in_Biblical hence the reason for the "Corrective" nature of Paul's letter.

You asked me.................
"By themselves, tongues are not made to be understood by anyone. The only way to understand them is through interpretation of tongues. Do you agree, or continue to disagree?"

DISAGREE!

The "tongues" spoken in the Scripture were "Languages".

It is the listener and not the speaker as is commonly taught. If you have ever prayed with someone who is offering a prayer in a language unknown to you, then you know what Paul meant when he said it is difficult for you to say “Amen” at the end of the prayer. Without an interpreter, you have no idea to what you are assenting.

If you are listening with someone speaking in tongues of unknown dialect which we call "utterances"
and no one interprets that prayer, they may just be calling you a liar, and a thief and that you are both ugly and have a bad attitude as well as being a gossip, and you say amen, you are agree with them because you do not know what they said. You know that they "Uttered" something but you do not know what it was.

It is obvious from the context of 1 Corinthians 14 that the purpose of speaking in tongues, or foreign languages, is to communicate the gospel. If the listeners do not understand the spoken language they cannot be edified. Consequently, if there is no interpreter, the speaker is simply speaking into the air and the only ones present who know what is being said are God and himself. This is the clear meaning of the often-misquoted verse (2) “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”

Paul emphasizes again that the languages spoken need to be understood by the hearers “So likewise ye; except ye utter by tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.” “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God” (verses 9, 28).
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
not sure the point your trying to make, or I misunderstand it.... by Paul's own admission he was an apostle, just read the few verse of any of his epistles, not to mention there are countless numbers confirmed in scripture who speak in tongues so if you're trying to say it was reserved for the 11... well... it just doesn't make sense.

In Mark 16, the ELEVEN Apostles were addressed by Jesus: and now, after all that they had experienced, they must believe, for else they would perish! In return, they were granted the powers to survive wild snake bites, but through faith in Christ, protection from poisoning, and to speak all foreign languages, heal the sick and raise the dead. After this, at a later stage, the Apostles were baptized with fire.
They now believed . I believe that you will agree with that as it is exactly what the Scriptures say.

Now some people, however, will argue that Jesus spoke about the people the Apostles would convert and that they would receive this special gift. The thinking of course is that if that was so then, then it is so now. Others say that it was only for those back then and not for us today.

But I am confident that there is no need or that there is no ability for the gift of tongues today for there is no proof to support the opposite, that this gift was only granted to the Apostles.

I will also ask this question. Since the sign gifts given to the ELEVEN were a PACKAGE deal which included being able to survive snake bites and drinking poison........
why do those who are animate in speaking in tongues not have pert rattle snakes and drink bleach.

And NO that is not testing God, it is using the gifts preserved just as speaking in tongues.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
As much as I rarely delve into the views of the early Latin churchmen, nor do I even have any real interest with them, the PDF article that I referred to is interesting in that it reveals that these early churchmen, or at least with the ones that the author referred to, did not even entertain the idea that 1 Cor 13:10 possibly referred to the completion of the Canon of Scripture. If the cessationist understanding of telion was something that was commonly understood either leading up to or during the time of these early Latin churchmen then they would have undoubtedly discussed it, but what do we see, an apparent complete silence on your position.

That is beacuse the cessationism v continuationism debate was not an issue for the church fathers. They witnessed and reported that certain gifts ceased and accepted it as such, as did the rest of the church throughout history which remained cessationist right up until the twentieth century when supposedly those gifts are claimed to be suddenly restored. Since then far more research has been made into the biblical veracity of such claims including the in-depth study of 1 Cor 13:8-13.

The advantage of studying the patristic writings is they can give us further insight into the teachings and practices of the apostles and early church. Seeing as they lived so close to the time of the apostles there is less chance of their teachings being corrupted by external doctrinal influences over time.

And one thing we do notice from their writings is they are unanimous in affirming that tongues were foreign human languages and not a heavenly/non-human tongue which is purely a twentieth century invention.

At the start of his letter to the Church throughout Achaia Paul quickly opened his letter with a direct Eschatological reference, though the English use of 'spiritual gift' in most of our translations is a bit narrow as it is better rendered as 'free-grace'. As Paul has already established an unambiguous connection between the Ministry of the Holy Spirit as we await the return of the Lord with his Kingdom, then there is no possibility that any of the listeners within Achaia would have considered a future Canon of Scripture as being a possibility.

1 Cor 1: 4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
I could hardly imagine that even a single person within the various congregations within Achaia who heard Paul's letter being read out would ever entertain the notion that he was somehow speaking of a future completed Canon of Scripture.

As I have explained to you before when you appealed to 1 Cor 1:7, not lacking in any of their gifts as they waited for the Lord's return is not the same as saying they had all the gifts until the Lord's return.

As for those who are prophets', we do not know if Paul is speaking of the Old Testament Prophets or of the Apostles who were also prophets.

Commentators are virtually unanimous in affirming that Paul was referring to NT prophets in Eph 2:20. How could the OT prophets be the foundation of the NT church - they never knew the gospel of Christ but rather taught the law of Moses. And 'apostles who were also prophets' is Wayne Grudem's hypothesis that has been widely debunked by others as it violates Sharpe's rule of Greek grammar.

You seem to be moving into a world of make believe as some of the early Latin churchmen admitted that the Manifestations of the Spirit were in operation at least into the third and fourth centuries; after this time as the Church had fallen into the 1000 years of the Dark Age we should not be surprised that the cessationist mindset then took over.

Ignoring your insult, yes the gifts didn't vanish overnight, but disappeared gradually over a couple of hundred years as the completed canon was circulated among the churches which no longer needed the revelatory and miraculous gifts as a result. The later church fathers such as Augustine, Chrysostom, and others affirmed that those gifts had died out by around 400ad.

The Dark Ages is just another term for the Middle Ages. It doesn't mean it was a time of spiritual darkness or something.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
OK, now I can see why you don't want to meet my challenge, as the truth is finally coming out, and now I can see why you were confusing the issue. What you are doing right now is calling your "tongue" a real language, because you want to believe that it is, not because you actually believe that it is. I can see this unsurety behind what you are saying. Here you are merely repeating the traditional Charismatic dogma about what you do. But before you respond denying your unsurety, if you want to show that you really are certain it is a real language, then why not present it for evaluation? Are you willing to be accountable?
TD:)

I'm not accountable to you. And I'm not going to jump through all your hoops. 1 Corinthians 14:38.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
this may come to a surprise to you but ball ("a round thing you throw about") and ball ("a dancing party") are two different words.



not 1 word with 2 meanings but 2 words that have the same spelling with different meanings.



again not 1 word with 2 meanings but 2 words that sound the same but have different meanings.

I can assure you however there are no homonyms/homographs for teleion. the word is what the word is and although context will have slight nuances especially in greek with different morphology the word is far more constant that you give it credit but translations can be more flexible. All these lexicons are in english and they are reflecting an english grasp on the word not a original greek context of the word.

Other sources say differently:

www.dictionary.com/browse/homonym
Phonetics. a word pronounced the same as another but differing in meaning, whether spelled the same way or not, as heir and air; a homophone (def 1).

dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/homonym
a word that sounds the same or is spelled the same as another word but has a different meaning

www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/homonym
A homonym can be a word that sounds the same as something else — like by (“near”) and buy (“purchase”) — or it can be spelled exactly the same way and pronounced differently — like minute (unit of time) and minute (“tiny”).

www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/homonym
a word that is spelled the same or sounds the same as another word but has a different meaning

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/homonym
(semantics, strict sense) A word that both sounds and is spelled the same as another word but has a different meaning.

www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/homonym
a word that is spelled and pronounced like another word but is different in meaning

www.wordreference.com/definition/homonym
a word that is the same as another in sound and spelling but different in meaning, such as bear "to carry '' and bear "large, brown or black furry animal.''

www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/homonym
A homonym is a word that has the same sound or spelling as another but a different meaning.

www.glossary.sil.org/term/homonym
A word that has the same pronunciation as another. Homonyms differ from each other in:
meaning
origin
usually spelling


In the definition you have quoted I don't think it is saying that homonyms are 2 different words but rather 2 examples of the word, hence the plurality. If "ball" was 2 different words it would have 2 seperate dictionary entries.

With teleios the word can be mean perfect, complete or mature, with the context determining the correct meaning. For instance Heb 5:13-14 reads:

For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature [teleios], who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Here the meaning is clearly 'mature', as Paul making a contrast with an infant, and virtually every bible version translates it as such. Using 'perfect' here wouldn't make sense. So the context of 1 Cor 13:10 must also determine the meaning of the word there, and 'completeness' in my view is a far better fit than 'perfect' for the reasons I outlined earlier.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
the concept is not obscure but the alleged biblical support for it is. it is perfectly reasonable that the 1st century church had the ability to conceive of such a canon but it is irresponsible to use biblical support to predict this event.

Why is it irresponsible to say 'completeness' is the completion of the canon, if that is the correct meaning? It certainly makes more sense to the context than calling it the 2nd coming in my view.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Of course. Mary and Martha prayed and asked Jesus to heal Lazarus, but He did not heal him and Lazarus died.

2 Sam 7 - God said "no" to David's desire to build a temple.

Elijah, 1 Kings 19. He prayed that he might die. "I have had enough, Lord," he said. "Take my life. I am no better than my ancestors." God said "no" because He had an adventure planned for Elijah!

Jeremiah 11:11......
"So now I, the Lord, warn them that I am going to bring destruction on them, and they will not escape. And when they cry out to me for help, I will not listen to them."

Our Scriptures in the New Testament have to do with abiding in Jesus, which is more than mere knowing He is God. He gives us the Holy Spirit, and through Him, rhemas by which to know what to pray that are His will. He has also given us His Word, and we can pray according to His Word for the Holy Spirit to draw someone who is lost.

Jeremiah 11:11 uses the words will not listen to them. That is the same as not hearing them. But if we abide in Jesus, we can know that He is listening, and will do what He has told us He will do. 1 John 5:14-15
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
Tertullian spoke in tongues around 200 A.D.

Yes, the very early church fathers report tongues being still active, but the later fathers reported it had ceased by around 400 AD.

All we have to do is look at ancient history. Eli was not a good high priest, and his sons were even worse. That is why in 1 Samuel 3 it says "Now the boy Samuel ministered to the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation.

The same could be said of the Church. They grew cold and even added paganism practices and attire to the Bride of Christ! Is it any wonder that the gifts of the Spirit were rare. But God always had a remnant, even through the darkest ages of the Church.

There is no link between the wickedness of a few people and the lack of prophecy. There was wickedness around when all the other OT prophets were active. The reason God does not give prophecies is because God chooses not to give prophecies, not because there is any fault in his people. When Malachi uttered his last prophecy and there were no further prophets for 400 years it wasn't because of sin, it was because the OT canon was complete. The same applies to NT prophecy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
With unmistakable clarity Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:22..........
“Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not . . . ”.

The word “sign” (Gr. semeion) in the New Testament means that with the conveying of a Divinely-given message to unbelievers. This is the emphasis in John 20:30, 31 where we read..........
“And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name.”

The signs (miracles) were never performed without purpose, but because of the message they communicated.

What then does that mean? It means that the true function of the gift of tongues is
for a sign . . . to them that believe not.”
To exercise the gift when unbelievers were not present would be exercising the gift above the purpose for which it was given------and that is what is seen in todays churches!!!!!

The gifts were never given for the self-satisfaction or self-glory of the recipients. The one upon whom the gift was bestowed was merely an instrument through whom God wanted to communicate His message.

Speaking in tongues was no mark of spirituality, because the Corinthian church was unspiritual, un-Biblical having manifested carnality (3:1-3) and even gross sin (5:1). And so Paul points them to a Scripture they should have known, saying in 12:21..........
“In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord”.

This purpose of the gift of tongues, namely to communicate God’s message to Israel, is verified in the three passages in Acts where speaking in tongues is mentioned.

FIRST.......In Acts 2 tongues-speaking was used as a missionary or evangelistic tool in fulfillment of Isaiah 28:11. There was no need for the disciples to learn other languages before they could communicate the Gospel. God overcame the language barrier through the miracle-gift of tongue.
Jews speaking to Jews about the Jew, Jesus.

SECOND....Acts 10:46 the second mention of speaking in tongues occurs. The occasion again was to communicate the Gospel, this time for the purpose of effecting the conversion of Cornelius and his house. This event cannot be totally disassociated from Pentecost because Peter, when relating this experience, said, “And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning” (Acts 11:15). At the house of Cornelius tongues-speaking was a sign to Jews at a time when the Gospel was being communicated with Jews speaking to Gentiles about the Jew, Jesus. (Acts 10:44-46).

THIRD.......Acts 19:6 there appears the third passage in Acts in which speaking in tongues is recorded. Again its purpose was missionary and evangelistic. Again the purpose for speaking in tongues is obvious, namely, to communicate the Gospel message.

These are the only instances of tongues-speaking recorded in the Bible, except the passage in First Corinthians. None of the later Epistles mention speaking in tongues. The gift was used only in the transitional period between Law and Grace. The sign gifts continued through the period of the Apostles while the New Testament was in the process of being written.

I know you guys do not want to hear this but none of the later Epistles mention speaking in tongues. It is clear that the gift was used only in the transitional period between Law and Grace. The sign gifts continued through the period of the Apostles while the New Testament was in the process of being written.

If one could find an Apostle living today who saw the bodily-resurrected Lord Jesus, he would not be exercising the sign gifts because he would have what you and I have, and what Peter, Paul and John did not have, the completed written Word of God. Now that we have the Scriptures we do not need miracles to confirm God’s message.

Thank you for laying out so beautifully what you believe. Of course I disagree. But I'm not going to continue to go over each number because I already have. You know my stance. I know your stance. I praise God I no longer hold to your stance that I grew up in. Never once in all those years did I see one prayer answered. Now all my prayers are answered due to the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, the very early church fathers report tongues being still active, but the later fathers reported it had ceased by around 400 AD.



There is no link between the wickedness of a few people and the lack of prophecy. There was wickedness around when all the other OT prophets were active. The reason God does not give prophecies is because God chooses not to give prophecies, not because there is any fault in his people. When Malachi uttered his last prophecy and there were no further prophets for 400 years it wasn't because of sin, it was because the OT canon was complete. The same applies to NT prophecy.

Read Jesus letters to the seven chuches. They are church ages. Not until Philadelphia did the church begin to believe and KEEP His Word.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
We know there are two, because there are two directions - TO AND FROM. One requires interpretation, whereas the first does not as God already knows what is being said and it is TO Him, not to man.

I have already demonstrated that your theory is wrong but you never responded.... The prayers in tongues in 1 Cor 14:13-17 were TO God yet they still needed to be translated.
 
Upvote 0

swordsman1

Well-Known Member
May 3, 2015
3,940
1,064
✟250,347.00
Faith
Christian
I cannot accept that any scholar would view Paul’s teachings as saying that tongues are supposedly to be spoken in a known human language when he goes to great lengths in chapter 14 to say otherwise.

Where exactly in Chapter 14 does Paul say tongues is a non-human language? I've asked you this question numerous times before and you've never answered, so I won't hold my breath this time.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Not according to Paul it isn't. Read 1 Cor 12:9-30, Rom 12:4-6.

1 Corinthians 12, no; Mark 16, yes. Two different manifestations of speaking in tongues are described in Scripture if you have an open mind and want to see why. I asked these questions for 7 years, and God showed me the answers.

Romans 12 are Gifts from the Father to everyone. Look at Adam Lambert's voice. That is from God, but he is a homosexual and will go to hell if he doesn't change.

1 Corinthians 12 are Gifts from the Holy Spirit to Christians.

Epheshians 4 are Gifts from Jesus for the Church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Where exactly in Chapter 14 does Paul say tongues is a non-human language? I've asked you this question numerous times before and you've never answered, so I won't hold my breath this time.

I think I can answer for him of what he believes.

1 Corinthians 13 (remember chapter changes didn't happen for hundreds of years) verse one, says tongues of men and of ANGELS. You've already given your opinion that angels was merely an exaggeration. Let's move on.

1 Corinthians 14:2 says "no man understands."

I'm not debating this, I just think I know what Biblicist believes. I believe it is both men and angels. He may not. Maybe his opinion is that MEN is the "exaggeration." LOL
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0