Speaking in tongues not happening anymore

Kaon said:

The Greek word for tongue in that verse is "glossa" - which means a literal tongue, or by implication the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations. Look up the Greek word, cross reference it with the actual verse.

You can't just read the books superficially; the Word of God is pithy.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring 1 Corinthians 14:2 where Paul distinctly says that the person who speaks in an unknown tongue speaks to God, and no person understands him; he is speaking mysteries in the Spirit. This verse shows that it cannot normally be an understandable language, except on the rare occasion that the Holy Spirit makes it understandable for a particular purpose to show an individual that God is aware of him and what he is going through. What is distinctive about Greek is that a word can have various meanings depending on what context in which it is used.

Lost4words said:

The Apostles spoke in true tongues. Today, we have gobbledegook. No message in the so called 'tongues'.

Click to expand...

I travel to work on the bus with Chinese and Indian people who speak together in their own languages and it all sounds like gobbledegook to me!

Kaon said:

The Greek word for tongue in that verse is "glossa" - which means a literal tongue, or by implication the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations. Look up the Greek word, cross reference it with the actual verse.

You can't just read the books superficially; the Word of God is pithy.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that when Paul said that when a person speaks in tongues they are speaking to God, mysteries in the Spirit which no person can understand, he didn't really mean that but had some underlying meaning which we are to discern spiritually?

If you are going to use that logic on Paul's writings, then you must do it to all of it. So when Paul gave a list of the works of the flesh and that those who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God, he didn't really mean it literally, but he had some mysterious spiritual meaning that we are to somehow discern?

Don't you think that if the New Testament was written in simple Greek for ordinary people, then it must be interpreted literally without trying to find some "spiritual" subtext meaning in it?

In reality, most if not all the non-Christian cults are based on "subtext", "spiritual" interpretations of Scripture which have come from "revelations" and "spirits" that are not of the Holy Spirit.

Oscarr said:

Well, he had Matthew, Luke and John which were already written, which had all the subsequent information in them so why repeat what the Roman church already had? And if he got his material from Peter, and Peter got crucified, there was no more accurate material to be had, so Mark had to finish at verse 8. I think that Mark was satisfied that he had shown the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, and so there was nothing more to be added in his opinion.

Click to expand...

I asked you if you had watched the two videos?

Oscarr said:

So you are saying that when Paul said that when a person speaks in tongues they are speaking to God, mysteries in the Spirit which no person can understand, he didn't really mean that but had some underlying meaning which we are to discern spiritually?

If you are going to use that logic on Paul's writings, then you must do it to all of it. So when Paul gave a list of the works of the flesh and that those who practice them will not inherit the kingdom of God, he didn't really mean it literally, but he had some mysterious spiritual meaning that we are to somehow discern?

Don't you think that if the New Testament was written in simple Greek for ordinary people, then it must be interpreted literally without trying to find some "spiritual" subtext meaning in it?

In reality, most if not all the non-Christian cults are based on "subtext", "spiritual" interpretations of Scripture which have come from "revelations" and "spirits" that are not of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

The message wasn't for you, I don't think. Someone will come along and find use in what I have put up.
I am not arguing with you. Cheers.

CharismaticLady said:

I asked you if you had watched the two videos?

Click to expand...

I will get to them presently.

CharismaticLady said:

The verses on snake bites and poison is a Hebrew idiom actually meaning we can expect supernatural protection (not just from snakes and poison). Serpents also refer to demons.

Mark's last verses were inspired, so should be there. It has actually been proven scientifically according to Dr. Ivan Panin's work, that only God could write it.

Click to expand...

Fascinating and convincing. All the deletions in the more modern translations to fit into Gnostic theory is a bit scary. The old KJV looks better as the more reliable one.

CharismaticLady said:

I asked you if you had watched the two videos?

Click to expand...

I watched them, and I am convinced that even though Mark might not have originally written them, the last 12 verses seem to be inspired by the Holy Spirit because of the mathematical nature of the construction. This means that we can accept and rely on those twelve verses as Holy Scripture.

Oscarr said:

I watched them, and I am convinced that even though Mark might have originally written them, the last 12 verses seem to be inspired by the Holy Spirit because of the mathematical nature of the construction. This means that we can accept and rely on those twelve verses as Holy Scripture.

Click to expand...

Exactly! I am convinced also.

Now, you just said that "even though Mark might have originally written them," did you mean not originally written them? Anyway, no scribe was inspired. I believe those last verses were verified that not only were they inspired, but that they were in the original and written by Mark, and not added later. It is a powerful statement that all who are believers can speak in tongues, etc., and in the four gospels! Whenever these were deleted, they weren't believed anymore. Gnostics never received the Holy Spirit, as He is not the author of heretical thinking. Even Tertullian spoke in tongues, as he left the Roman Church and became a Montanist.

In regards to speaking in tongues, I will never forget when my friend (who previously attended an Assemblies of God church) went to a Bible study at his Pastor's house once a week and sometimes the Pastor would speak in tongues during their Bible study. My friend worked with a woman who was a Baptist and was terrified of being around people who spoke in tongues, yet my friend convinced her to come to the Bible study to see for herself that she has nothing to fear. When his lady friend showed up at the Bible study, as soon as she walked in the door, the Pastor began speaking in tongues very loudly with his hands high in the air, then he fell backwards to the floor! My friend said that even he was freaked out by the incident and when he turned around, his lady friend was running for the hills! Of course, that did not help the case for tongues for this Baptist woman and it was also not a good example of things being done properly and in an orderly manner. (1 Corinthians 14:40)

Then you have groups (like Oneness Pentecostal and Revival Fellowship churches) that teach if you have not spoken in tongues, then you have not received the Holy Spirit and won't be saved. I'm not one to argue for or against tongues being for today, but there sure seems to be plenty of abuse of tongues going on today.

Danthemailman said:

Then you have groups (like Oneness Pentecostal and Revival Fellowship churches) that teach if you have not spoken in tongues, then you have not received the Holy Spirit and won't be saved. I'm not one to argue for or against tongues being for today or not, but there sure seems to be plenty of abuse of tongues going on.

Click to expand...

That was a very funny story, but sad.

We must be born again of the Spirit to be saved, and even though Mark 16:16-18 says they will speak in tongues, among other authorities, it is still up to us whether we open our mouths and speak, or speak healing. I do not call tongues the "evidence." I call a miraculously changed life and power over sin as the true evidence. One thing is for sure - no one can speak in tongues without being filled with the Holy Spirit. But those without the Spirit can fake it, so what kind of evidence is that?! I would rather call answered prayer the true sign of assurance 1 John 3:21-23

CharismaticLady said:

Exactly! I am convinced also.

Now, you just said that "even though Mark might have originally written them," did you mean not originally written them? Anyway, no scribe was inspired. I believe those last verses were verified that not only were they inspired, but that they were in the original and written by Mark, and not added later. It is a powerful statement that all who are believers can speak in tongues, etc., and in the four gospels! Whenever these were deleted, they weren't believed anymore. Gnostics never received the Holy Spirit, as He is not the author of heretical thinking. Even Tertullian spoke in tongues, as he left the Roman Church and became a Montanist.

Click to expand...

One expert in Greek said that the style of the last twelve verses was very different to the style of the rest of the book. This made him think that these verses were written by someone else after Mark finished his writing. But that makes little difference to me, because of your videos which convinced me that although they may have been added, because they are consistent with the other gospels, then there is no reason why they should not have been inspired. Actually, Mark was not one of the original Apostles, but he got the majority of his material from Peter. So if we are saying that only the Apostles were inspired, then we have to discount Mark. But Mark was inspired, not being an Apostle, so the person who added the extra 12 verses could well have been inspired. However, because the verses are consistent with the rest of the gospels in general, we can accept them as inspired and therefore the Word of God to us.

Yes, it was a typo, and I corrected it.

In actual fact, the Montanists were almost identical in doctrine and practice as most modern Charismatics. They were treated as heretical by the established church which was declining into formalism and therefore falling away from true commitment to Christ and holiness.

Danthemailman said:

In regards to speaking in tongues, I will never forget when my friend (who previously attended an Assemblies of God church) went to a Bible study at his Pastor's house once a week and sometimes the Pastor would speak in tongues during their Bible study. My friend worked with a woman who was a Baptist and was terrified of being around people who spoke in tongues, yet my friend convinced her to come to the Bible study to see for herself that she has nothing to fear. When his lady friend showed up at the Bible study, as soon as she walked in the door, the Pastor began speaking in tongues very loudly with his hands high in the air, then he fell backwards to the floor! My friend said that even he was freaked out by the incident and when he turned around, his lady friend was running for the hills! Of course, that did not help the case for tongues for this Baptist woman and it was also not a good example of things being done properly and in an orderly manner. (1 Corinthians 14:40)

Then you have groups (like Oneness Pentecostal and Revival Fellowship churches) that teach if you have not spoken in tongues, then you have not received the Holy Spirit and won't be saved. I'm not one to argue for or against tongues being for today or not, but there sure seems to be plenty of abuse of tongues going on.

Click to expand...

Oh dear! Just shows that the devil can influence good pastors when it is his purpose to spook and put off a godly woman to enter into the things of the Spirit and his gifts! That is very sad, and that pastor, when he stands before Jesus and realises what he has done, he will weep many tears of regret until the Lord wipes them away.

Those who teach that a person has to speak in tongues in order to be truly filled with the Spirit and be saved, are preaching a false gospel and are condemned to hell unless they repent and abandon that false gospel and return to the true gospel that teaches faith in Christ alone without works for salvation.

It is the same with those who teach that people have to conduct themselves to certain standards of holiness before they can know that they are saved. This is also false gospel and denies Christ Himself whose finished work on the cross brings salvation to those who have total faith in Him without anything they can do for themselves. The way of Abel was to offer a sacrifice that involved death, a forerunner of Christ's sacrifice for us on the cross. Cain's sacrifice was of the work of his own hands and the sacrifice was refused. Those who insist on works of holiness and certain actions of conduct in order to be saved are going the way of Cain and are teaching condemnation and guiding people to hell. This includes the requirement of tongues.

There is nothing we can do to earn salvation, even trying to be holy and using spiritual gifts. The hymn is correct: "Nothing in my hands I bring, but simply to the cross I cling". This goes for our sanctification as well. There is nothing we can do to make us sanctified and holy. If we try in our own strength, we are going the way of Cain. We must trust the Holy Spirit to do it in us.

Therefore, a genuine convert to Christ will have the ability to speak in tongues, but the Holy Spirit is the One who releases it through us.

CharismaticLady said:

That was a very funny story, but sad.

We must be born again of the Spirit to be saved, and even though Mark 16:16-18 says they will speak in tongues, among other authorities, it is still up to us whether we open our mouths and speak, or speak healing. I do not call tongues the "evidence." I call a miraculously changed life and power over sin as the true evidence. One thing is for sure - no one can speak in tongues without being filled with the Holy Spirit. But those without the Spirit can fake it, so what kind of evidence is that?! I would rather call answered prayer the true sign of assurance 1 John 3:21-23

Click to expand...

In support of your post:
The Scripture says that faith "Is the evidence of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for".

What this means for salvation is that the evidence of salvation is our faith in Christ's finished work on the cross, alone, with nothing added. Even the evidence of a changed life is not enough, because anyone can reform his morals and appear to be holy in his conduct, but yet still be in the way of Cain and be condemned to hell. There will be many "holy" reformed souls in hell, who trusted in their own reformed morals to get them to heaven.

No. The real evidence is total and complete faith in Christ alone for salvation is all that is needed. The Holy Spirit in us does the rest.

Oscarr said:

One expert in Greek said that the style of the last twelve verses was very different to the style of the rest of the book. This made him think that these verses were written by someone else after Mark finished his writing. But that makes little difference to me, because of your videos which convinced me that although they may have been added, because they are consistent with the other gospels, then there is no reason why they should not have been inspired. Actually, Mark was not one of the original Apostles, but he got the majority of his material from Peter. So if we are saying that only the Apostles were inspired, then we have to discount Mark. But Mark was inspired, not being an Apostle, so the person who added the extra 12 verses could well have been inspired. However, because the verses are consistent with the rest of the gospels in general, we can accept them as inspired and therefore the Word of God to us.

Yes, it was a typo, and I corrected it.

In actual fact, the Montanists were almost identical in doctrine and practice as most modern Charismatics. They were treated as heretical by the established church which was declining into formalism and therefore falling away from true commitment to Christ and holiness.

Click to expand...

Yes, Mark was inspired.

Tertullian was a man of God and that is why he left the Roman church and became a Montanist.

Oscarr said:

In support of your post:
The Scripture says that faith "Is the evidence of things not seen and the assurance of things hoped for".

What this means for salvation is that the evidence of salvation is our faith in Christ's finished work on the cross, alone, with nothing added. Even the evidence of a changed life is not enough, because anyone can reform his morals and appear to be holy in his conduct, but yet still be in the way of Cain and be condemned to hell. There will be many "holy" reformed souls in hell, who trusted in their own reformed morals to get them to heaven.

No. The real evidence is total and complete faith in Christ alone for salvation is all that is needed. The Holy Spirit in us does the rest.

Click to expand...

Many have faith in Christ, but show no change in their life. According to you they are saved, and those living holy lives are self-righteous.

As for answered prayer, how many can say that.

CharismaticLady said:

Many have faith in Christ, but show no change in their life. According to you they are saved, and those living holy lives are self-righteous.

As for answered prayer, how many can say that.

Click to expand...

I think you added two and two and got five here.

It is very true that many say they have faith in Christ, but their lives don't show it. That's what James was saying.

Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord", will be recognised by Christ. What many term as faith is nothing more than just an intellectual belief. True faith in Christ results in a total commitment to Christ as Lord, and as a result of their total commitment to Him in faith, they are filled with the Holy Spirit who starts working sanctification in them. The person is then changed from his heart outwards. Instead of the works of the flesh, the person starts to show the fruit of the Spirit.

But, a person does not start making moral changes in order to get saved. That is self-righteousness, and it is a gospel of works which brings God's curse upon them. But when a person is saved through faith in Christ alone, apart from works, then they receive the righteousness of Christ, are filled with the Holy Spirit, and the process of sanctification starts working in them.

True holiness is expressed in D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' comment:
"There is no such thing as a good Christian. We are all vile people saved by the grace of God." It is the mercy and grace of God, and the inner working of the Holy Spirit that makes a person truly holy and not from any efforts that we can make to improve our moral conduct.

Oscarr said:

But, a person does not start making moral changes in order to get saved.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about those who have been born again, and those who just know about Christ and say they are saved, but there is absolutely nothing that changes in their life. There has to be change and power over sin.

CharismaticLady said:

I'm talking about those who have been born again, and those who just know about Christ and say they are saved, but there is absolutely nothing that changes in their life. There has to be change and power over sin.

Click to expand...

It does not come through self-effort, but through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within us. This is what Paul said in Galatians: "Having begun in the Spirit, are you attempting to carry on in the flesh?" (by accepting the Judaizer's gospel of faith and works).

There is nothing we can add in support of our salvation, nor of our sanctification. The Holy Spirit has to do it all in us. This is why the Scripture says that we are His workmanship. Our self effort in trying to be holy by doing good deeds leads to just self-righteousness, and actually denies the power of the Holy Spirit and the righteousness of Christ in us to work true holiness in our lives.

Oscarr said:

It does not come through self-effort, but through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit within us. This is what Paul said in Galatians: "Having begun in the Spirit, are you attempting to carry on in the flesh?" (by accepting the Judaizer's gospel of faith and works).

There is nothing we can add in support of our salvation, nor of our sanctification. The Holy Spirit has to do it all in us. This is why the Scripture says that we are His workmanship. Our self effort in trying to be holy by doing good deeds leads to just self-righteousness, and actually denies the power of the Holy Spirit and the righteousness of Christ in us to work true holiness in our lives.

Click to expand...

Of course it is the Spirit - that is part of the new birth, but we must WALK after the Spirit. If we don't, then we are quenching Him.