Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Not true. there is such a thing as demonic tongues
the gift of tounques here is simply a sign for the unbelievers.
While speaking in tounques was a sign of the holy ghost being received on the day of pentecost and available for everyone there.
The holy spirit in acts was promised for everyone and speaking in tounques was common
.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.
Clearly there are 2 different forms of speaking in tounques. One was a sign of being filled
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.
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
It is a personal prayer language TO God,
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
They experienced what those in the room did.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Almost. 1 Cor 14:22 is a negative sign. Mark 16:17 is a positive sign.
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.
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??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?