Speak in Tongues - essential :

[Apex]

How can tongues (in the charismatic sense) be an accurate sign of salvation if it can be faked?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

How can tongues be an accurate sign of salvation if it can be faked?

confession can be faked too to be fair though. I get where you're coming from though but there were/are false prophets, preachers but that doesn't mean that preaching/prophesying can't be considered an accurate way to present a word of God.

The devil always uses something of God and uses it against christians hence the whole anti christ status. Now in the charismatic sense idk lots of times it is fake

 

[Apex]

confession can be faked too to be fair though. I get where you're coming from though but there were/are false prophets, preachers but that doesn't mean that preaching/prophesying can't be considered an accurate way to present a word of God.

The devil always uses something of God and uses it against christians hence the whole anti christ status. Now in the charismatic sense idk lots of times it is fake

Just to be clear. So you agree? Just because someone is speaking in tongues (in the charismatic sense) does not mean they are saved.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Just to be clear. So you agree? Just because someone is speaking in tongues (in the charismatic sense) does not mean they are saved.

I agree 100% espsicully when it comes to practice tounques or whatever that lotd of times charismatics participate in. This type is mentioned in Corinthians I believe as earthly tounques manifested by man. Any man made practiced tounque isn't a sign of the Holy spirit. In acts they couldn't control their tounque even today that's how this experience works. You speak in an uknown language you don't know and never learned

 

[Albion]

My mother believes in it, she says she gets "spiritual insights" when she privately prays in tongues. Kind of vague....but that is one person's view.

I understand. If she does, then she does.

But it doesn't make sense to me how it could...unless the idea is simply that the person feels some sort of release that is understood by them as being generally spiritual. However, if I accept that, I cannot agree that it's essential to being a full Christian or even that it's a gift of the Holy Spirit as opposed to being purely a physical thing, yet most Pentecostal Christians will insist it is one or the other of these or both.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In response to the OP: I think I'll put my faith in Jesus instead.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[tampasteve]

I understand. If she does, then she does.

But it doesn't make sense to me how it could...unless the idea is simply that the person feels some sort of release that is understood by them as being generally spiritual. However, if I accept that, I cannot agree that it's essential to being a full Christian or even that it's a gift of the Holy Spirit as opposed to being purely a physical thing, yet most Pentecostal Christians will insist it is one or the other of these or both.

I agree with this assessment. She does not have anyone translate it for her, and knows not what she prays. But it brings her comfort. Perhaps not unlike meditation for calming ones mind in a Buddhist tradition or Christian mystic tradition.

 

[Strong in Him]

Are you suggesting that JESUS never mentioned to speak in tounques at all?

Where does it say that he did?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Where does it say that he did?

Here it is Mark 16:17-18King James Version (KJV) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

[Albion]

Here it is Mark 16:17-18King James Version (KJV) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Giving this passage every consideration, it still isn't possible to see it as speaking to all believers. At best, it is saying that such things may be given to those whom God chooses. But most churches that promote tongues use insist that it is a gift that all mature believers will receive or even that you cannot be a full Christian unless you are speaking in tongues. Obviously, though, they aren't going to say the same thing about handling poisonous snakes or drinking poison.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here it is Mark 16:17-18King James Version (KJV) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It's worth noting, of course, that the Longer Ending of Mark is considered spurious.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strong in Him]

Here it is Mark 16:17-18King James Version (KJV) And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Yes. But please note that:
a) that is the only verse; there is no record of Jesus healing/forgiving/baptising people and then teaching that they should speak in tongues.
b) that passage was not in the earliest NT manuscripts, and some people dispute it. It is more like an observation of what later happened in the early church. As I said, nowhere else does Jesus teach about speaking in tongues - not even in John 14 and John 16, in all his teaching on the Holy Spirit.
c) even if it could be proved that Jesus did say these words, he is talking about the various signs that will follow - NOT giving a command that people have to speak in tongues or they can't be considered to be believers. He also mentions drinking poison and snake handling; are you also saying these are things that believers MUST do?
d) Jesus was conceived by,and filled, with the Holy Spirit; yet there is no evidence that he spoke in tongues.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

It's worth noting, of course, that the Longer Ending of Mark is considered spurious.

-CryptoLutheran

I'm aware some view mark that way because it doesn't fit with their doctrine. But it doesn't change the fact it's in there

 

[Strong in Him]

I'm aware some view mark that way because it doesn't fit with their doctrine. But it doesn't change the fact it's in there

You've no proof that that is why they say that about Mark. It could be said that you are promoting ONE verse because it fits your doctrine.

 

[Albion]

I'm aware some view mark that way because it doesn't fit with their doctrine.

This ^ is always the easiest way to dispose of any uncomfortable portion of God's word.

 

[brinny]

Sure it is. The original tongues described in the New Testament were nothing like today's imitations. And today's tongues came about because some preachers said believers ought to have that gift. So they produced it. But that's not the nature of a gift.

People can make sounds and think that's the Holy Ghost at work, but you know that tongues are described in the Bible along with other gifts. How many of these others do you see people demonstrating, compared to speaking in unintelligible sounds? That's because the others can't be copied nearly as easily.

My Bishop once told the entire congregation that those "faking" the "speaking in tongues" needed to stop it. There was also a woman he chastised for uncontrollably laughing non stop, and even rolling on the floor, etc. to just stop it.

 

[Albion]

Yeh, that *Holy Laughter* movement broke new ground for the movement, so of course it instantly became a hit.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Yes. But please note that:
a) that is the only verse; there is no record of Jesus healing/forgiving/baptising people and then teaching that they should speak in tongues.
b) that passage was not in the earliest NT manuscripts, and some people dispute it. It is more like an observation of what later happened in the early church. As I said, nowhere else does Jesus teach about speaking in tongues - not even in John 14 and John 16, in all his teaching on the Holy Spirit.
c) even if it could be proved that Jesus did say these words, he is talking about the various signs that will follow - NOT giving a command that people have to speak in tongues or they can't be considered to be believers. He also mentions drinking poison and snake handling; are you also saying these are things that believers MUST do?
d) Jesus was conceived by,and filled, with the Holy Spirit; yet there is no evidence that he spoke in tongues.

response to A): Well for starters JESUS hasn't died yet at this time he was sort of informing of a future event..just like when he told hte apostles about how they would receive power. The holy spirit is the spirit of christ and power that could be received as a result of his resurrection which didn't happen yet. IT was still the 5th dispensation of time the 6th or the grace period the period of acts we live in now didn't happen yet. The whole acts 2:38 salvation process wasn't in effect yet you could say.


REsponse to B): Be careful with manuscript stuff....people use the same evidence to dispute Noah's Ark even being a thing, it's best to stick with your bible.Additionally, he tells the apostles to get power from on high...they do and they end up speaking in tounques...i'm not sure how that's a coincidence and how mark wouldn't fit with that.




response to C): You simply made the claim that JESUS never told us to speak in tounques...there's no need to try to change the subject to commanding. Additionally, when he says these are signs of the believers he's simply saying these are things believers have the ability to do, a saved christian has teh ability to cast out a demon but that doesn't mean he will need to do so in his life time for example. However, in acts/corinthians and so forth speaking in tounques is emphasized as being the initial evidence of the holy spirit. While the other signs are just additional evidence per say that a believer can display.


Response to D): Everyone else post his resurrection did though lol. Also some argue he did when the disciples were trying to figure out what he was saying in the bible I believe it was in mark i don't recall...I don't have much to say on that but yeah. Personally I don't believe he did but i'm not sure why that matters if everyone did after when they received the power on high post his resurrection.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm aware some view mark that way because it doesn't fit with their doctrine. But it doesn't change the fact it's in there

It has nothing to do with "it doesn't fit with their doctrine", after all the Lutheran Confessions quote from it regularly in regard to the importance of Baptism. The point is that the Longer Ending of Mark is considered spurious, I'm not saying that because the Ending is bothersome to my own theology (it's not, there's nothing in the Longer Ending that I find theologically objectionable); however personal opinions and feelings aside, it is generally understood that the Longer Ending is spurious. The existence of variant endings to Mark, along with the absence of any of these endings in the manuscript record, indicate that Mark likely ended at verse 8; but endings were written latter and appended to Mark because as it stands Mark seems to end very abruptly--some see in this abrupt ending an intentional abruption to leave the reader feeling a sense of awe, others have suggested that it may have been left unfinished for one reason or another. But that the Longer Ending isn't authentically Marcan is pretty well accepted given the evidence we have. This isn't the only example we have, the Pericope Adulterae is also absent from our earliest manuscripts of John, and in several cases appears in Luke's Gospel, leading many to believe that it was a free-floating tradition that existed independently of the Four Gospels that at times was incorporated into Luke, and other times into John before ultimately being included in John (this doesn't make the Pericope Adulterae false, only that it wasn't originally written by the Fourth Evangelist), other free-floating traditions exist in antiquity, though these never made it into any Gospel text, one example being the Egerton Fragment (Papyrus Egerton 2) which contains several parallels to the Canonical Gospels, but also includes an otherwise unknown miracle.

My point is simply that we should tread carefully with the Longer Ending and not hang our hat too hard on it, due to it being spurious. There's nothing theologically objectionable, but in all truth wasn't written by the Second Evangelist, and its veracity is open to question.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

You've no proof that that is why they say that about Mark. It could be said that you are promoting ONE verse because it fits your doctrine.

i'm not promoting this verse...i'm simply responding to your claim that he never said to speak in tounques lol... I mean if he mentions it and you say he didn't mention it i mean someone's got to say something. Even if some believe it does not apply...it doesn't change the fact he reportedly said it in the bible that many claim is infallible