Is Speaking In Tongues Biblical Today?

[1stcenturylady]

Not at all. Clearly Fee is not convinced if he says that today's tongues is only something 'analogous' to NT tongues.

He said it was a supernatural activity of the Spirit.

It is you who gives NO PLACE for it being of the Holy Spirit. Fee doesn't agree with you.

 

[swordsman1]

He said it was a supernatural activity of the Spirit.

He said today's tongues "is understood" to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit. He doesn't claim that himself. And he certainly doesn't say it is NT gift of tongues as he makes clear.

 

[1stcenturylady]

He said today's tongues "is understood" to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit. He doesn't claim that himself. And he certainly doesn't say it is NT gift of tongues as he makes clear.

Does he speak in tongues? He, himself, is Pentecostal.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The first part of the list are ALL from the Old Testament, which was written before the New Covenant was put into effect. No Christian is bound by that covenant.

Luke and the other gospels were written to those not living under the New Covenant.

Revelation was written to tell what would happen in the future. In your quote, there are three groups that will be rewarded: prophets, saints (Christians), and "those who fear Your name" (non-Christians). Notice the difference between the last two. Apparently some non-Christians will be rewarded, but that is another topic.

If you want to live in fear of our loving eternal father, that's your choice. If God loves me, why should I fear him? It's self-contradictory.

You must have an interesting Bible if it does not contain the Old Testament, Gospels, or Revelation. I grew up in a church which also rejected most of the Bible, but for different reasons.

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

This was written when "all scripture" was only the Old Testament.

 

[Major1]

Let me ask, has knowledge vanished away yet? Nope, its still there.
While knowledge continues to flow, then so do the other parts of this verse. You can't just cancel the bits you don't like.

The Holy Spirit baptism at Pentecost came long after they believed. They were also again filled with the Holy Spirit on other occasions.

It is however repeatedly given as one of the signs of infilling with the Holy Spirit.

If you insist on using the words "prayer language", then I would agree its not in scripture. But the same is true for the word "Trinity", does that make the trinity less true?
There is however perfectly sufficient clear teaching in the scripture about speaking in tongues, but none of it is likely to make sense for those who consistently deny tongues. As I said previously, "a man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument."
However I would add to that word, another common saying, "Evidence of absence, is not absence of evidence."
So just cos a man has never experienced tongues, that's no argument against tongues.

I was filled with the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues back in the mid 70s, over ten years after first knowing the Lord.

The problem comes when you claim the scriptures say things our biblical and real life experience proves is different.
Our biblical experience vs your argument.

Has "Knowledge" ceased? YES!

A computer has replaced a typewriter.
A TV has replaced the radio.
A cell phone has replaced yelling across the holler.
A car has replaced a horse.
Indoor bathrooms has replaced the outhouse.

"KNOWLEDGE" is progressive and what you knew yesterday has vanished away.

My experience over the years has been that people will do what they want todo and what makes them feel religious regardless of what the Scriptures say.

“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.”

1 Corth. 13:8..........
"Where there be tongues, THEY WILL CEASE......".

I did not say that.

 

[Major1]

That's a fool question as it establishes nothing.

Does God control all your forum posts, or you?
Did God control what you ate for breakfast, or did you choose all by yourself?
Did God control which brand of toilet paper you buy?
Does God control your emotions to make angry, sad, happy, depressed?

etc.

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”

Romans 8:28.......
"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose."

Did God say that?
Do you think that God can lie?

Matt. 10:29.........
"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father."

Amos 3:6..............
"Is a trumpet blown in a city, and the people are not afraid? Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it? "

Did God say that?
Can God lie?

Then where does the problem here lie, at God's feet or yours?

 

[Major1]

I think that men claiming to be able to heal the sick is a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when He said to the 70 who went out around the villages, "Heal the sick." I don't believe that He gave them any special ability to heal the sick. I believe that when they used His Name as His representatives as the authority to command a sick person to recover then it was not the disciples' power that brought about the healing; it was the power of the Holy Spirit through the authority of His Name. This is how the disciples in Acts 2 (?) understood it when they prayed, "Let signs and wonders be done in the Name of your holy child Jesus Christ." It was, and still is, the power of the Name of Jesus that brought about the healing. So, in effect, it is Jesus who does the healing, and not the guy who uses the Name.

It is basically the same as the Governor General of New Zealand who is representing the Queen of England. He can use the name of the Queen to perform certain functions that the Queen would have done if she were here in our country. The Governor General is not acting under his own authority, but the delegated authority given to him through his appointment as Governor General. So, if a person receives a knighthood and it is conferred in New Zealand, the Governor General can confer it as the Queen's representative, and it will be recognised by the British Crown. But our Prime Minster cannot confer a knighthood, because he has no authority from the Queen to do it. This is what representation and delegated authority is all about.

As a Court Victim Advisor, I could advise and counsel victims of crime because I had the delegated authority from the Ministry of Justice to do it. But now that I have retired from that position, I cannot go and advise victims of crime with Ministry authority, because I no longer have that right. I can advise victims, but the Court judge does not have to accept my report because I am not doing it under Ministry delegation, but under my own name.

This is where these evangelists promote the misunderstanding and give the impression that they can heal people under their own name, when God may not have elevated them into that role. It is only when Jesus calls and appoints a person to the role of healing evangelist and gives them the authority to use His Name, that when they use that Name in obedience, healing can take place. And not everyone, however prominent they may be, has been given that authority, and it is quite possible that many of these men who claim to heal people, may be taking the Lord's Name in vain, by trying to use it without His authority to do so.

I know that some will disagree, on the basis that they believe that Jesus has given everyone that authority to use His Name. If that were so, then we would see many more miraculous healings through every Tom, Dick, and Harry using His Name. But we don't see that happening, so I am tending to believe that Jesus has to do something definite to confer His Name and authority on a person He has chosen to perform healing, signs and wonders in His Name. I am not sure what that is. I don't think that I have it, because people don't get healed when I minister to them. Perhaps I have not been called by the Lord to have that role and ministry, although anyone can pray for a sick person to be healed, albeit with varying results.

Well said my friend and I agree with you.

I would only ask you to consider that MEN did have the same ability as did Jesus and they were the Apostles.

That IMO is the one explanation that satisfies the Scriptures and my personal longing to understand the healing issue.

Now if that is not the answer and MAN had that ability today he should be seen in hospitals healing the sick and morgues raising the dead.

The fact that we NEVER see that happen seems to me to prove what I am saying is the correct position.

 

[Major1]

Oh brother! First of all, there is no 1 Corinthians 18 (at least not in my Bible). Maybe you're using the wrong Bible?

If you read 1 Corinthians 13 in a recognized English Bible it clearly says "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. (Remember, Paul wrote this after Jesus died, was resurrected, and sent the Holy Spirit to people, including himself. Among other gifts, Paul spoke in tongues and healed people.)

The meaning of this is obvious: when Jesus comes to claim his own we will no longer have to depend on partial experience: we will no longer need prophecies, tongues, and knowledge. Perhaps the gifts of the Spirit are irrelevant to you, but he hasn't come to the rest of us yet, so prophecies, tongues, and knowledge remain.

You can interpret Scripture any way that you want, but I certainly don't accept your interpretation. I am a Spirit-filled believer who has been given certain gifts by God. I am thankful He has given them to me and I'm sorry that he apparently hasn't given them to you.

Some words of advice: don't judge the faith and/or experiences of others by your own.

I am absolutely positive that YOU are aware that it was a typing error and I am also of the opinion you knew that the correct Scripture should have been 1 Corinthians 13:8.

We are even than brother because I certainly do not accept your interpretation.

I believe the Bible is very clear on this and the word in the Greek is "TELEIOS" and it means COMPLETED?MATURE.

If you will do a little word study in the Greek you will see that the word is "NEUTER" in the Greek which means the PERFECT in verse #10 of chapter 13 must be a thing.

The only perfect THING is the Word of God, the Bible.

Now my brother, I also am a holy spirit filled believer.
I also am blessed that he has given me gifts and blessings.
I am also very blessed that God has given me common sense and an understanding of His Word.
If you do not agree with my understanding then I am just as happy as a tick on cows butt as your acceptance or rejection does not effect me one way or the other.

“Whenever you are about to find fault with someone, ask yourself the following question: What fault of mine most nearly resembles the one I am about to criticize?”

 

[Major1]

I think we have pretty much beat this old horse to death, don't you?

Let's shift scriptures unless you want to keep beating up on poor old Job.

Who drowned Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea?

OOOO ,,,,,OOOO I know that one.....Ask Me, Ask Me!!!

 

[bbbbbbb]

OOOO ,,,,,OOOO I know that one.....Ask Me, Ask Me!!!

Yes, Major, you can answer this for us.

 

[Major1]

How on earth does what I said question the omniscience of God?

Well, it seems to me that in Job 1 it shows that Satan was not able to afflict Job without God’s permission.

However, consider Satan’s argument before God: in verse 10.......
“Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land”.

You said that Satan did not have to ask God for permission but it seems that he did.

Doesn't that speak to the theology that God is in fact in control of everything?

 

[Major1]

Not competent theologians. 8^)

Or those who place emotional experiences above the written Word of God.

 

[Major1]

Yes, Major, you can answer this for us.

Thank you.....thank you........thank you!!!!

GOD DID IT!!!!!!

God does ALL things!

Colossians 1:16.......
"For by him (Christ) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him".

 

[pescador]

You must have an interesting Bible if it does not contain the Old Testament, Gospels, or Revelation. I grew up in a church which also rejected most of the Bible, but for different reasons.

II Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

This was written when "all scripture" was only the Old Testament.

WHAT are you talking about?? My Bible contains 66 "books" (and I have others that also have the apocrypha).

WHAT are you talking about?? Are you saying that the New Testament isn't Scripture??

 

[pescador]

Or those who place emotional experiences above the written Word of God.

Isn't that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of? They had their biblical scrolls which contradicted who he claimed to be.

Does that include Paul? After all, his experiences were a) after Christ ascended and gave the Holy Spirit to humans and b) happening when the written Word of God was the Old Testament only.

 

[Major1]

Isn't that what the Pharisees accused Jesus of? They had their biblical scrolls which contradicted who he claimed to be.

Does that include Paul? After all, his experiences were a) after Christ ascended and gave the Holy Spirit to humans and b) happening when the written Word of God was the Old Testament only.

John 10:33.........
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Luke 5:21.........
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Mat 26:65........
"Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy".

As I have stated very clearly before, Paul was an Apostle and he had all the sign gifts and could do all the miracles that Jesus did. Emotionalism was not a factor because he was AN APOSTLE.

 

[bbbbbbb]

WHAT are you talking about?? My Bible contains 66 "books" (and I have others that also have the apocrypha).

WHAT are you talking about?? Are you saying that the New Testament isn't Scripture??

What you told me is that the verses from the Old Testament are meaningless for you because they are of the Old Covenant. Therefore, nothing in the Old Testament has any value for you. So, you can just stick with the New Testament only - perhaps.

However, not all of the New Testament is valid, either, for you. Nothing in the Gospels has any real meaning because all of that took place under the Old Covenant which, as you stated, is not for you because you are part of the New Covenant.

Likewise, virtually all of Revelation is useless for you because it talks about events happening after the New Covenant is ended.

So, in your apparent Bible, the only meaningful books seem to be the Acts and the epistles (excepting, of course, the letter to the Hebrews, perhaps).

Why did you avoid my direct question?

 

[Francis Drake]

Read the next 2 verses. Paul is not saying that he or anyone else speaks in the language of angels. He is imagining an exaggerated scenario to make a point. He is saying even if someone could speak in tongues to the ultimate degree conceivable (speaking the language of angels), but not have love, it would be worthless. We can tell this because he does the same with 3 other gifts in the next 2 verses - having the gift of prophesy to the ultimate degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie. omniscience); having the gift of faith to the ultimate degree of moving mountains; and having the gift of giving to the ultimate degree of giving up ALL you possess to the poor and even giving up your own life. Paul is saying that even if someone had those gifts to such a superlative degree, without love, it would be to no avail.

This is just evasive garbage. You are the one imagining things, not Paul.

Fact. Speaking in tongues can be of men and angels, just as prophecy can reveal all mystery and knowledge.
Or do you want to challenge this fact?

Fact. Speaking in tongues can be of men and angels, just as we can also have faith like a mustard seed that moves mountains.
Or do you want to challenge Jesus as well?

Fact. Speaking in tongues can be of men and angels, just as we can also give all our possessions to the poor, or our bodies to be burned.
Do you want to challenge that fact also?

All of the above are of course worthless without love, but to reach in and extract Pauls reference to tongues of angels and declare it imagination is an unholy travesty, bending clear scripture to suit your personal theology!

The tongues spoken at Cornelius's household was exactly the same as those spoken at Pentecost. Peter says so in Acts 10:47. Peter said that Cornelius had received the Holy Spirit "just as we did". If the gentiles received the Spirit in a different manner then Peter was lying. It was only on the basis of the Gentile tongues being the same as theirs that the gentiles were accepted into the church; they would never have been accepted as equals otherwise.

Nonsense.
Nobody know what tongues will be spoken at any time or any place. So for you to make that declaration that it was exactly the same as at Pentecost just exposes a total lack of comprehension as to how prophecy or tongues is used.
The following scripture shows that there was variety in the gifts, variety in how the gifts were served, and varieties on workings of those gifts. You have no basis for putting them in a straight jacket.

1Cor12v4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of workings, but the same God is working all things in everyone.

If you want to see how broad the above varieties are, just look at the OT prophets. Some walked around naked, some married prostitutes, and someone else help me here as I haven't time to check out the rest of the crazy OT prophets.
But please just stop trying to limit God with your rampant unbelief.​

7Now to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit, for the common profiting. 8For truly, to one is given a word of wisdom by the Spirit, and to another a word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9and to a different one faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10and to another working of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another distinguishing of spirits, and to a different one various kinds of tongues, and to another interpretation of tongues. 11Now one and the same the Spirit works all these things, apportioning individually to each as He wills.

 

[swordsman1]

This is just evasive garbage. You are the one imagining things, not Paul.

Fact. Speaking in tongues can be of men and angels, just as prophecy can reveal all mystery and knowledge.
Or do you want to challenge this fact?

Fact. Speaking in tongues can be of men and angels, just as we can also have faith like a mustard seed that moves mountains.
Or do you want to challenge Jesus as well?

Fact. Speaking in tongues can be of men and angels, just as we can also give all our possessions to the poor, or our bodies to be burned.
Do you want to challenge that fact also?

All of the above are of course worthless without love, but to reach in and extract Pauls reference to tongues of angels and declare it imagination is an unholy travesty, bending clear scripture to suit your personal theology!

Theoretically they are all possible - all things are possible with God after all. But they are not the normal operation of those gifts are they. Being omniscient is not the normal operation of the gift of prophecy. Moving mountains is not the normal operation of the gift of faith. And giving away absolutely everything you own or giving up your own life is not the normal operation of the gift of giving. Similarly speaking in the language of angels is not the normal operation of the gift of tongues. Paul was painting a hypothetical picture where each gift is exaggerated to the highest conceivable degree in order to make the point that having even the most superlative of gifts would be worthless without love.

So for you to make that declaration that it was exactly the same as at Pentecost just exposes a total lack of comprehension as to how prophecy or tongues is used.

It was not me who said Cornelius spoke in tongues in the same way as the disciples. It was Peter, as recorded in divinely inspired scripture. Your argument is with God's infallible word, not me. If there was a 2nd non-human version of tongues then we would have told about it. But scripture says no such thing. As I said the idea of tongues being a non-human language was only invented around the beginning of the twentieth century.

 

[pescador]

John 10:33.........
“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

Luke 5:21.........
"The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

Mat 26:65........
"Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy".

As I have stated very clearly before, Paul was an Apostle and he had all the sign gifts and could do all the miracles that Jesus did. Emotionalism was not a factor because he was AN APOSTLE.

Nothin' like extracting single verses -- for what purpose?

Paul wasn't emotional? Read the New Testament then return to the discussion. I'm not going to discuss what the Bible clearly says (in context) about the spiritual gifts. Don't believe the truth -- it's your choice. I'm done!