Speak in Tongues - essential :

[1stcenturylady]

Not true. there is such a thing as demonic tongues

I'm not talking about voodoo. I'm talking in the Church.

Satan will always counterfeit the things of God.

 

[swordsman1]

the gift of tounques here is simply a sign for the unbelievers.

Umm, so the 'gift' of tongues is also a 'sign'? I thought you said they were different? You're not making much sense I'm afraid.

While speaking in tounques was a sign of the holy ghost being received on the day of pentecost and available for everyone there.

The 3000 saved didn't speak in tongues.

The holy spirit in acts was promised for everyone and speaking in tounques was common

Speaking in tongues in Acts was common??? The disciples at Pentecost, Cornelius's household and the 12 Ephesians. That's it. Not what I would call common, and certainly not everyone.

.but in corinthians there's a gift of tounques mentioned that isn't common for everyone and suddenly requires an interpreter which wasn't mentioned at all in acts.

There is a reason for that. The tongues at Pentecost was understood by the thousands of foreign pilgrims gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. While in Corinth, they were speaking tongues in small Greek house churches where nobody understood the language spoken.

Clearly there are 2 different forms of speaking in tounques. One was a sign of being filled

Tongues is not the sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Out of the dozen or so examples of people being filled with the Spirit in Acts, only one has anything to do with tongues. The one thing all the examples do have in common is boldness in speaking for God (Peter before the Sanhedrin, Stephen at his martyrdom, the disciples at Pentecost, etc). So if anything, boldness is the sign of being filled with the Spirit, not tongues.

 

[1stcenturylady]

So the tongues in Acts is different from the tongues in 1 Corinthians? One is miraculously speaking another language you haven't learned and the other is... errr... miraculously speaking another language you haven't learned?

Where is the scriptural reference for your claim that the 'sign of tongues' is for personal edification? 1 Cor 14:4? If so then that is referring to the Corinthian 'gift of tongues', is it not?

Isn't the 'gift' of tongues in 1 Cor 14:22 also described as a 'sign'?

The terminology in Acts and Corinthians is also exactly the same (glossa, laleo, etc). Luke was no doubt writing under the apostolic authority of Paul (being his lifelong friend and travelling companion). If it was something different Paul would have instructed Luke to make the distinction clear, but no, Luke uses the exact same terminology that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians.

Seems to me they are one and the same. It was a gift that could be used as a confirming sign and also one that could edify the church when translated in meetings.

1 Corinthians 14:22 speaks of the sign of tongues of Mark 16:17. It is a personal prayer language TO God, therefore does not require interpretation because it is not to man. It is a sign to the unbeliever in the sense that they won't be able to understand, and if everyone is speaking they will think you are crazy. It confirms an unbeliever in their unbelief. It is what is called "a sign spoken against." It is the same type of sign as Jesus, Luke 2:34.

There is no ability to speak in tongues that is ever understood by man without the supernatural GIFT of interpretation of tongues. That is not natural understanding.

So, there are two different manifestations of tongues, neither understood by man or the person speaking. And only one of them absolutely requires supernatural interpretation.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

So the tongues in Acts is different from the tongues in 1 Corinthians? One is miraculously speaking another language you haven't learned and the other is... errr... miraculously speaking another language you haven't learned?

Where is the scriptural reference for your claim that the 'sign of tongues' is for personal edification? 1 Cor 14:4? If so then that is referring to the Corinthian 'gift of tongues', is it not?

Isn't the 'gift' of tongues in 1 Cor 14:22 also described as a 'sign'?

The terminology in Acts and Corinthians is also exactly the same (glossa, laleo, etc). Luke was no doubt writing under the apostolic authority of Paul (being his lifelong friend and travelling companion). If it was something different Paul would have instructed Luke to make the distinction clear, but no, Luke uses the exact same terminology that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians.

Seems to me they are one and the same. It was a gift that could be used as a confirming sign and also one that could edify the church when translated in meetings.

I recommend you visiting a church where a considerable amount of individuals who speak in tounques reside, it helped me understand the difference between gifts and the common sign and it would help you. A church similar to corinthians full of spiritual gifts is the best place to really understand this all. Having anecdotal evidence is sometimes even better then just reading it. Since i've had this experience and you maybe haven't I encourage you to hear me out. Like i've seen straight up in person how gifts operate is what i'm trying to tell you.

1. I defined the difference quite clearly... in acts it was just speaking in an new tounque that the individual never learned nor understands but other individuals who happened to be from a geographical location that speaks that same language did.

WIth corinthians however an interpreter is needed...additionally it's described as a message from God for the believers

I answered your question as to the sign and what it means...how tongues are considered as being a negative flag/sign for unbelievers and is rejected. It also emphasizes the importance of interpretation.

2. I mean glossa just references a new language really...and an unknown tounque technically falls under that, it doesn't mean the same thing it simply means the result is the same. When you present a message through the gift of tounques it comes out as a.... new tounque, if someone got the holy spirit in acts for the first time it came out as a new tounque.




3. It seems to you that they are the same and just from reading it seems that way at first, but once you go to a church that resembles the one presented in this text it opens your understanding, I suggest you do so when you have the chance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And we have to be talking about actual tongues, actual glossolalia. The modern phenomenon of speaking in ecstatic gibberish isn't what is recorded as happening on Pentecost or what the Apostle describes as a gift of the Spirit. It doesn't require the Holy Spirit to speak in ecstatic gibberish, we see this same phenomenon across cultures and in different religious traditions, there are tribal/folk shamanistic traditions in which the shaman or spiritual medium (usually after entering a trance and/or consuming a concoction of mind-altering substances) engages in ecstatic gibberish which is seen as a spiritual communication.

One could interpret this as meaning that modern "tongues" has a demonic origin, though I think that goes too far; the far more reasonable and likely culprit is human psychology.

The real danger isn't that someone speaks ecstatic gibberish and attributes it to God (though that is obviously a problem), the real problem is when ecstatic gibberish becomes an obstacle to faith and, ultimately, a shipwrecking of faith--that happens by placing this thing as "the sign that one has the Holy Spirit" or that one is saved; to place one's assurance and hope of salvation on anything other than the crucified and risen Lord Jesus is to shipwreck the faith of others. To turn people away from the Lord Jesus and His Gospel is a most dangerous thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

1 Corinthians 14:22 speaks of the sign of tongues

Yes, a sign to the unbelieving, read the whole passage not just the part that is convenient.

It is a personal prayer language TO God,

No, no it's not. If one speaks in a tongue without interpretation then the person is intelligible only to God, but it is not a "personal prayer language" that is not a biblical statement.

It is a sign to the unbeliever in the sense that they won't be able to understand, and if everyone is speaking they will think you are crazy.

No, read the passage. It is a sign to the unbelieving because God foretold that even with a people speaking a foreign language the people would not believe--it is a sign to the unbelieving of their unbelief.

It confirms an unbeliever in their unbelief.

Yes. That is its only function as a sign.

There is no ability to speak in tongues that is ever understood by man without the supernatural GIFT of interpretation of tongues. That is not natural understanding.

False, we see this very thing described in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, the pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost heard and understood because the languages being spoken were their languages.

So, there are two different manifestations of tongues, neither understood by man or the person speaking.

Untrue. There is nothing in Scripture about "two different manifestations of tongues". That's not a remotely biblical statement and there is precisely no evidence from Scripture to substantiate this.

And only one of them absolutely requires supernatural interpretation.

Scripture speaks of tongues, not two kinds of tongues, just tongues; it describes tongues as real languages which were comprehensible to native speakers and speaks of the need of interpretation in order for the tongue to be made comprehensible. That's what Scripture says.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes, a sign to the unbelieving, read the whole passage not just the part that is convenient.



No, no it's not. If one speaks in a tongue without interpretation then the person is intelligible only to God, but it is not a "personal prayer language" that is not a biblical statement.



No, read the passage. It is a sign to the unbelieving because God foretold that even with a people speaking a foreign language the people would not believe--it is a sign to the unbelieving of their unbelief.



Yes. That is its only function as a sign.



False, we see this very thing described in the 2nd chapter of the Acts, the pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem for Pentecost heard and understood because the languages being spoken were their languages.



Untrue. There is nothing in Scripture about "two different manifestations of tongues". That's not a remotely biblical statement and there is precisely no evidence from Scripture to substantiate this.



Scripture speaks of tongues, not two kinds of tongues, just tongues; it describes tongues as real languages which were comprehensible to native speakers and speaks of the need of interpretation in order for the tongue to be made comprehensible. That's what Scripture says.

-CryptoLutheran

Your rude statement of me using 1 Corinthians 14:22 alone, was my responding to the person using that verse.

Mark 16:17-18 - SIGN OF TONGUES
1 Cor. 12 - GIFT OF DIVERSE KINDS OF TONGUES

Two different manifestations of speaking in tongues.

Acts 2, the devout Jews HEARD THEM (all of them) speaking in their own individual language.

That would be like if three disciples were speaking in tongues and the languages were Japanese, English, and Russian, and a devout Jew heard all three of them speaking French.

You are reading Acts 2 without understanding. It does not contradict 1 Corinthians 14:2.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Umm, so the 'gift' of tongues is also a 'sign'? I thought you said they were different? You're not making much sense I'm afraid.



The 3000 saved didn't speak in tongues.



Speaking in tongues in Acts was common??? The disciples at Pentecost, Cornelius's household and the 12 Ephesians. That's it. Not what I would call common, and certainly not everyone.



There is a reason for that. The tongues at Pentecost was understood by the thousands of foreign pilgrims gathered for the Feast of Pentecost. While in Corinth, they were speaking tongues in small Greek house churches where nobody understood the language spoken.



Tongues is not the sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Out of the dozen or so examples of people being filled with the Spirit in Acts, only one has anything to do with tongues. The one thing all the examples do have in common is boldness in speaking for God (Peter before the Sanhedrin, Stephen at his martyrdom, the disciples at Pentecost, etc). So if anything, boldness is the sign of being filled with the Spirit, not tongues.

1. I disagree the end of the verse says there were added unto them 3,000 souls. 3,000 got saved during this whole pentecost experience. They experienced what those in the room did.


2. You forgot to mention paul, mother of JESUS, Samaritans as well. Also you're being sort of unfair here....acts didn't document everyone who got the holy ghost but gave enough instances to where it can be logically assumed that those who did in acts spoke in tounques.


3. I have to seriously disagree because in corinthians it's stated that no man understands an unknown tounque spoken by someone with the gift of tounques. In other words no matter how many people you gather together..you'll need an interpreter.

4. There is more then just one example where it's clearly stated someone speaks in tounques acts 19 is a good example.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Your rude statement of me using 1 Corinthians 14:22 alone, was my responding to the person using that verse.

Disagreement is not rudeness.

Mark 16:17-18 - SIGN OF TONGUES
1 Cor. 12 - GIFT OF DIVERSE KINDS OF TONGUES

Two different manifestations of speaking in tongues.

Your say-so doesn't make it so.

Acts 2, the devout Jews HEARD THEM (all of them) speaking in their own individual language.

Not what the text says. And if that were the case the charge of drunkenness makes less sense--people seemingly speaking all in the same language is a possibly quite noisy conversation; a cacophony of different languages would appear like nonsense.

That would be like if three disciples were speaking in tongues and the languages were Japanese, English, and Russian, and a devout Jew heard all three of them speaking French.

It's more like,

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, 'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.' All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?” But others sneered and said, 'They are filled with new wine.'"

They were speaking Parthian, Elamite, Phrygian, Egyptian, etc; and those from Parthia, Elam, Phrygia, and Egypt heard and understood.

You are reading Acts 2 without understanding. It does not contradict 1 Corinthians 14:2.

Nobody said anything about contradiction, that's a strawman.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

They experienced what those in the room did.

Not what the text says. The text says the three thousand were baptized and added to the Church; there is nothing there about the three thousand also speaking in tongues.

but gave enough instances to where it can be logically assumed that those who did in acts spoke in tounques.

This is the danger in reading description as proscription. Description is not proscription.

3. I have to seriously disagree because in corinthians it's stated that no man understands an unknown tounque spoken by someone with the gift of tounques. In other words no matter how many people you gather together..you'll need an interpreter.

Paul wants everyone to benefit, that's why he says an interpretation is needed. This does not exclude native-born speakers from being there to benefit, but for everyone to benefit it needs to be interpreted for everyone, someone with the gift of being able to translate (interpret) is beneficial here; but there's nothing in the text that says that it is impossible for a native speaker to understand what is being spoken.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[1stcenturylady]

Not what the text says. The text says the three thousand were baptized and added to the Church; there is nothing there about the three thousand also speaking in tongues.



This is the danger in reading description as proscription. Description is not proscription.



Paul wants everyone to benefit, that's why he says an interpretation is needed. This does not exclude native-born speakers from being there to benefit, but for everyone to benefit it needs to be interpreted for everyone, someone with the gift of being able to translate (interpret) is beneficial here; but there's nothing in the text that says that it is impossible for a native speaker to understand what is being spoken.

-CryptoLutheran

..

 

[1stcenturylady]

Disagreement is not rudeness.



Your say-so doesn't make it so.



Not what the text says. And if that were the case the charge of drunkenness makes less sense--people seemingly speaking all in the same language is a possibly quite noisy conversation; a cacophony of different languages would appear like nonsense.



It's more like,

"All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability. Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. Amazed and astonished, they asked, 'Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs—in our own languages we hear them speaking about God’s deeds of power.' All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, 'What does this mean?” But others sneered and said, 'They are filled with new wine.'"

They were speaking Parthian, Elamite, Phrygian, Egyptian, etc; and those from Parthia, Elam, Phrygia, and Egypt heard and understood.



Nobody said anything about contradiction, that's a strawman.

-CryptoLutheran

"read the whole passage not just the part that is convenient"

Your tone was rude.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

It was a sign to unbelieving 1st century Israel.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Not what the text says. The text says the three thousand were baptized and added to the Church; there is nothing there about the three thousand also speaking in tongues.



This is the danger in reading description as proscription. Description is not proscription.



Paul wants everyone to benefit, that's why he says an interpretation is needed. This does not exclude native-born speakers from being there to benefit, but for everyone to benefit it needs to be interpreted for everyone, someone with the gift of being able to translate (interpret) is beneficial here; but there's nothing in the text that says that it is impossible for a native speaker to understand what is being spoken.

-CryptoLutheran

The text says 3,000 were baptized and 3,000 souls added, I would argue that indicates 3,000 not just being baptized but likely saved as well.

Proscription?



There's nothing in the text that suggest any other human can understand it either though and verse 2 in the chapter itself gets rid of such a notion all together. I feel we are just debating over assumptions here that each of us hold in the end though tbh. Me with 3,000 souls being added and you with this whole in theory someone can understand a gifted tounque stuff hard to discuss things like that.

 

[swordsman1]

1 Corinthians 14:22 speaks of the sign of tongues of Mark 16:17.

Almost. 1 Cor 14:22 is a negative sign. Mark 16:17 is a positive sign.

It is a personal prayer language TO God, therefore does not require interpretation because it is not to man.

Where in scripture is tongues ever described as a 'personal prayer language'?

It is a sign to the unbeliever in the sense that they won't be able to understand, and if everyone is speaking they will think you are crazy. It confirms an unbeliever in their unbelief. It is what is called "a sign spoken against." It is the same type of sign as Jesus, Luke 2:34.

Agreed, untranslated and unrecognized tongues is a negative sign to unbelievers. But it is still spoken by someone with the Corinthian gift of tongues.

There is no ability to speak in tongues that is ever understood by man without the supernatural GIFT of interpretation of tongues. That is not natural understanding.

Eh? The tongues in Acts were understood by men, no interpretation there. And the tongues in Corinth would too if there had been natives of the language spoken present.

 

[swordsman1]

I recommend you visiting a church where a considerable amount of individuals who speak in tounques reside, it helped me understand the difference between gifts and the common sign and it would help you. A church similar to corinthians full of spiritual gifts is the best place to really understand this all. Having anecdotal evidence is sometimes even better then just reading it. Since i've had this experience and you maybe haven't I encourage you to hear me out. Like i've seen straight up in person how gifts operate is what i'm trying to tell you.

I've been to numerous charismatic and Pentecostal services. What I witnessed was people speaking gibberish (not actual human languages as described in the NT) and even if it was the NT gift they were disobeying the instructions of Paul regarding tongues as multiple people were speaking untranslated tongues at once. How can it from the Holy Spirit when it is clearly unscriptural?

1. I defined the difference quite clearly... in acts it was just speaking in an new tounque that the individual never learned nor understands but other individuals who happened to be from a geographical location that speaks that same language did.

WIth corinthians however an interpreter is needed...additionally it's described as a message from God for the believers

I've already explained why that was the case. Not because they were 2 different phenomena, but because one was spoken in the presence of foreigners who understood the language, and the other not.

2. I mean glossa just references a new language really...and an unknown tounque technically falls under that, it doesn't mean the same thing it simply means the result is the same. When you present a message through the gift of tounques it comes out as a.... new tounque, if someone got the holy spirit in acts for the first time it came out as a new tounque.

Yes, tongues (glossa) = language, in this context. It was miraculously speaking a foreign human language unknown and new to the speaker, in both Acts and 1 Corinthians.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I've been to numerous charismatic and Pentecostal services. What I witnessed was people speaking gibberish (not actual human languages as described in the NT) and even if it was the NT gift they were disobeying the instructions of Paul regarding tongues as multiple people were speaking untranslated tongues at once. How can it from the Holy Spirit when it is clearly unscriptural?



I've already explained why that was the case. Not because they were 2 different phenomena, but because one was spoken in the presence of foreigners who understood the language, and the other not.




Yes, tongues (glossa) = language, in this context. It was miraculously speaking a foreign human language unknown and new to the speaker, in both Acts and 1 Corinthians.

Paul simply says to have some order or people available to explain what's going on in the services essentially, not that people couldn't worship together in tounques. Also I am nto suggesting all churches who say they are pentecostal truly speak in tounques, among tons of denominations nowadays is a practice tounque epidemic especially among charismatics.

I am curious though you claim you've been to numerous pentecostal/charismatic churches.... how were you able to determine it wasn't another language??


So you're arguing something that's not biblical.... that interpretation is only needed if no foreigners for certain languages are present?

 

[swordsman1]

3,000 got saved during this whole pentecost experience. They experienced what those in the room did.

Where does it say the 3000 spoke in tongues?

2. You forgot to mention paul, mother of JESUS, Samaritans as well.

Where did Paul and Mary speak in tongues in Acts?

It doesn't say the Samaritans spoke in tongues. The may have done, or it may have been another manifestation of the Spirit, eg prophecy. Luke doesn't say.

acts didn't document everyone who got the holy ghost but gave enough instances to where it can be logically assumed that those who did in acts spoke in tounques.

I didn't say all believers in Acts didn't receive the Holy Spirit. All believers have the holy spirit (it says so - eg Rom 8:9), but not all believers spoke in tongues (it doesn't say that - anywhere).

So because tongues was spoken at those 3 or 4 unique historical events (the Jews first receiving the HS, the Gentiles first receiving the HS, (maybe) the hated Samaritans first receiving the HS, and the disciples of John the Baptist first receiving the HS), you automatically assume that all believers everywhere spoke in tongues? The reason tongues was spoken at those unique historical events was a confirming sign that whole new groups of people were being added to the church.

3. I have to seriously disagree because in corinthians it's stated that no man understands an unknown tounque spoken by someone with the gift of tounques. In other words no matter how many people you gather together..you'll need an interpreter.

Examine the context of 1 Cor 14. Paul is addressing the problem in Corinth of people speaking an unrecognized language in the congregation. He says that no one in the congregation understands an unrecognized tongue (not that no one on the face of the earth would understand). If someone was speaking Persian in Corinth then it is not surprising no one understood. But if the same tongue was spoken in Persia, then people would understand.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Almost. 1 Cor 14:22 is a negative sign. Mark 16:17 is a positive sign.

Correct. It is a double-edged sword. To the unbeliever it is negative, to a believer it is positive. As I said, it is the same type of sign as Jesus. Negative to a hardened unbeliever, and abundant to the believer.

A sign which will be spoken against.

 

[swordsman1]

Paul simply says to have some order or people available to explain what's going on in the services essentially, not that people couldn't worship together in tounques.

This is what Paul said:
1 Cor 14:27 "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God."

I am curious though you claim you've been to numerous pentecostal/charismatic churches.... how were you able to determine it wasn't another language??

I did some research into academic studies of modern glossolalia. Professional linguists have examined thousands of samples of modern glossolalia but they have never found any linguistic structure. It is consists of syllables from the speaker native language, put together more or less haphazardly. When translations are readily available (as in some Pentecostal churches) then it would be a trivial matter for them to construct the languages syntax - but even then they have always drawn a blank.