Speak in Tongues - essential :

[Biblicist]

I am technically and spiritually right in calling any talk as gibberish since it is neither understood by the speaker nor by the audience.

How can you be right when the Scriptures tell us that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that his words are always directed toward the Father; what the Holy Spirit says to the Father as he intercedes on my behalf is the business of no other.

 

[Albion]

The scriptures do not tell us that gibberish which is nothing but an affectation is actually praying in the spirit.

 

[Ron Gurley]

1. It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is synonymous with the baptism of the Holy Spirit
   
2. It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is an evidence of being filled with the Spirit.
   
3. It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is the fruit of the Spirit.
   
4. It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is an evidence of one’s faith.
   
5. It is a mistake to seek the (spiritual) gift of speaking in tongues.
   
6. It is a mistake for a woman to speak in tongues.
   
7. It is a mistake to assume that the sign-gifts are given to believers today.

First, speaking in tongues can be self-induced.
Second, speaking in tongues can be group-induced.
Third, speaking in tongues can be satanically-induced.

REF: https://bible.org/article/speaking-tongues

SEE ALSO: https://carm.org/speaking-in-tongues

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-is-speaking-in-tongues-a-biblical-analysis/

http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-speaking-in-tongues/

http://biblesearch.com/speaking-in-tongues/

http://www.bpnews.net/25413/doctrine-the-bible-and-tongues

 

[Anto9us]

1. It is a mistake to listen to -- or even read posts by -- these know-it-all Cessationists

2. See # 1

 

[Biblicist]

The scriptures do not tell us that gibberish which is nothing but an affectation is actually praying in the spirit.

As Paul does not use the word gibberish then its use is something that I will leave to those who are apparently unaware of what it means to pray in the Spirit; what Paul certainly says is that tongues can never be understood by the human ear, at least during times of congregational worship. Of course, what man cannot understand should never stand in way of how the Holy Spirit communicates to the Father.

 

[Biblicist]

1. It is a mistake to listen to -- or even read posts by -- these know-it-all Cessationists

Hey, I would be somewhat content if they at least knew something about the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit other than what they read about him in their very old and tired denominational creeds.

 

[Anto9us]

blind men describing the elephant just cuz they once touched a trunk

never seen the elephant, but they can tell you all about it

(shrug)

 

[Albion]

As Paul does not use the word gibberish then its use is something that I will leave to those who are apparently unaware of what it means to pray in the Spirit

Paul does not use the word gibberish for a very good reason. He was speaking of actual tongues-speaking, not the imitation put on by people these days or, in some cases, the meaningless utterances that some people, although sincere, produce thanks to a physical and emotional release. This stuff is actually gibberish, not in any way a real language.

 

[Biblicist]

1.It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is an evidence of being filled with the Spirit.

The problem with this point is that Luke (Acts) links the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (soteriologically) with speaking in tongues. Now if you want to say that Paul does not do this then you will be on safer ground.

2. It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is the fruit of the Spirit.

I trust that we would all agree with this.

3. It is a mistake to assume that speaking in tongues is an evidence of one’s faith.

How can being able to pray in the Spirit (tongues) not be deemed to be an evidence of an individuals faith, it makes no sense. In fact Peter pointed out that the ability of the Romans to speak in tongues was evidence that the Holy Spirit has now fallen upon the Gentiles, how can you have missed this rather obvious point.

3.It is a mistake to seek the (spiritual) gift of speaking in tongues.

Who would not want to be able to pray in the Spirit.

4. It is a mistake for a woman to speak in tongues.

So you are saying that women have no right to be able to pray in the Spirit, that’s a disgraceful thing to say. Of course Paul only says that a women may not judge a prophecy which has nothing to do with how we pray in the Spirit to the Father.

It is a mistake to assume that the sign-gifts are given to believers today.

As the Scriptures do not tell us that the role of the Holy Spirit will change during the Church Age then where do you get your information from?

First, speaking in tongues can be self-induced.
Second, speaking in tongues can be group-induced.
Third, speaking in tongues can be satanically-induced.

It seems that your issues with the Holy Spirit are not so much theological but that you appear to have some trust issues with the Father, as for me, I have no issues with trusting God that he will only give me good things; I feel sorry for those who are so afraid of the Holy Spirit that they are unable to fully embrace him.

 

[Biblicist]

Paul does not use the word gibberish for a very good reason. He was speaking of actual tongues-speaking, not the imitation put on by people these days or, in some cases, the meaningless utterances that some people, although sincere, produce thanks to a physical and emotional release. This stuff is actually gibberish, not in any way a real language.

If you like, you can be the first person who as ever been able to demonstrate where Paul says that tongues are to be given in known human languages; for that matter, if this were to be the case then why does Paul not provide us with any examples of this. So here you go, you can be the first one to do this.

 

[Albion]

The problem with this point is that Luke (Acts) links the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (soteriologically) with speaking in tongues. Now if you want to say that Paul does not do this then you will be on safer ground.

You don't seem to get the point that claiming to speak in tongues is not speaking in tongues.

And Paul was undoubtedly referring to genuine tongues such as existed in the church during the first few generations of church history, not the fake tongues that people nowadays put on artificially. Get that? Artificially.

That is NOT what Paul was dealing with, even if today's Pentecostals and charismatics want to think that what they do is the same as what was done in the past.

 

[Albion]

If you like, you can be the first person who as ever been able to demonstrate where Paul says that tongues are to be given in known human languages; for that matter, if this were to be the case then why does Paul not provide us with any examples of this. So here you go, you can be the first one to do this.

Read my previous post.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The scriptures do not tell us that gibberish which is nothing but an affectation is actually praying in the spirit.

You know don't you that Pentecostals do not claim that the "G" word you used, which is a slur to a gift of God, is speaking in tongues?

 

[Albion]

You know don't you that Pentecostals do not claim that the "G" word you used, which is a slur to a gift of God, is speaking in tongues is that?

If it's gibberish, it's not tongues, so it cannot be a slur. If I were to denounce the real tongues that existed in the early years of the church and are described in the New Testament...that would be a slur. I haven't done that.

 

[1stcenturylady]

If it's gibberish, it's not tongues, so it cannot be a slur.

To still use that word when you KNOW it is offensive, is deliberately spiteful and not of God. Righttruth used it 4 times after letting him know that it was offensive so we know who his father is too (are you brothers). It is a dirty word originated by cessationists. Pentecostals are not guilty of speaking "G". The tongues we speak are from the Holy Spirit to the Father, and NOT TO MAN. You aren't God are you? Then it is not meant for you to understand.

 

[Albion]

To still use that word when you KNOW it is offensive, is spiteful and not of God. It is a dirty word originated by cessationists.

What if I told you that 'cessationist' is considered offensive by many conventional Christians who are not Pentecostalites?

 

[Biblicist]

You don't seem to get the point that claiming to speak in tongues is not speaking in tongues.

And Paul was undoubtedly referring to genuine tongues such as existed in the church during the first few generations of church history, not the fake tongues that people nowadays put on artificially. Get that? Artificially.

That is NOT what Paul was dealing with, even if today's Pentecostals and charismatics want to think that what they do is the same as what was done in the past.

Okay, considering that you have not offered any Biblical evidence for your particular worldview, where the best you can do is to 'hope' that you are right then your views are indeed a worldview and not a theological construct.

 

[1stcenturylady]

What if I told you that 'cessationist' is considered offensive by many conventional Christians who are not Pentecostalites?

I would be happy to oblige. What would you like to be called that indicates you do not believe in the gifts of the Spirit are for us today?

 

[Biblicist]

You know don't you that Pentecostals do not claim that the "G" word you used, which is a slur to a gift of God, is speaking in tongues?

To be fair, it can be easy for all of us to employ derogatory terms with regard to those things that we do not understand.

 

[Albion]

I would be happy to oblige. What would you like to be called that indicates you do not believe in the gifts of the Spirit are for us today?

Just avoid using that term. Although, I'm not that thin-skinned. However, there are people who do find it offensive, as I said. And by the way, it is a contrived word that isn't in my dictionary. Gibberish is, however.