Speak in Tongues - essential :

[Marvin Knox]

Response to post #538............

Post#483: ......................Q1: ...

ETC.

If you'll look at the bottom row of each person's post you'll see a button labeled "reply".

Hit that when addressing a certain post and the person being addressed will get a notification that you have commented on their post. He or she can then return communications with you.

 

[swordsman1]

So there is such a thing as angelic languages, I mean, who would question it if Paul says, even hypothetically, "if I speak in the tongues of men and of angels" --
the other hypothetical "ifs" -- giving body to be burned, having faith to move mountains (which Jesus affirms as possibility also)
they all CAN BE DONE

so tongues involves languages of men and of angels

But such extreme examples of those gifts are not the normal expected operation of those gifts are they. So speaking in the 'tongues of angels' is not the normal expected operation of the gift of tongues. Paul was making the point that having spiritual gifts, even to the highest degree conceivable, is worthless without love.

 

[swordsman1]

When individuals throw in the now very old and tired hypothetical line by rewording its meaning to that of hyperbole; which admittedly at times this may be the result of a limited education, it is usually little more than an attempt to deflect people away from the plain sense of the passage; essentially, it is little more than CNN theology as with fake news and intentional misdirects.

Oh, so you think knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge, moving mountains, giving away EVERYTHING that you own, and giving up your own life are not exaggerations but the normal expected everyday operations of each of those gifts?

 

[swordsman1]

You people have to have lost your minds? Or - are you just being argumentative and hoping no one will call you on these ridiculous statements?

And what were you saying earlier about snarky comments?

 

[swordsman1]

I'm staggered as to how you can equate prophecy with mysteries.

And I am staggered that you cannot see that mysteries are associated with prophecy. Allow me to assist you:

First of all, if you hadn't noticed, it forms part of the same "if" statement dealing with prophecy and therefore clearly connected with it.

Secondly a mystery (mustérion) is a secret of God that is hidden and awaiting to be revealed to mankind. Those are clearly things that can, if God so chooses, be revealed in prophecy.

BDAG Lexicon
μυστήριον
...
① the unmanifested or private counsel of God, (God’s) secret, the secret thoughts, plans, and dispensations of God (SJCh 78, 9; τὸ μ. τῆς μοναρχίας τῆς κατὰ τὸν θεόν Theoph. Ant. 2, 28 [p. 166, 17]) which are hidden fr. human reason, as well as fr. all other comprehension below the divine level, and await either fulfillment or revelation to those for whom they are intended​

And here is a clear example of Paul revealing a mystery in a prophecy:

Rom 15:51 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. "​

Thirdly if "knowing all mysteries" was a separate example of Paul's then it would have it's own "if" qualifier like the others.

Fourthly if "knowing all mysteries" was a separate example then like the other examples it would be a spiritual gift. I don't see "knowing all mysteries" listed anywhere as a spiritual gift.

 

[swordsman1]

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;

Seeing as you claim that tongues is an unintelligable language then gibberish would seem to be an appropriate word:

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gibberish
Definition of gibberish
: unintelligible or meaningless language:
a : a technical or esoteric (see esoteric 1) language The doctors spoke to one another in their medical gibberish that I was unable to follow.
b : pretentious or needlessly obscure language The substance of the philosopher'swork is buried in polysyllabic gibberish.
​

what Paul certainly says is that tongues can never be understood by the human ear, at least during times of congregational worship.

Only in cases such as the Corinthians where an unrecognized tongue was being spoken. Of course an unrecognized tongue would not be understood by the congregation.

 

[Albion]

PS. Am I to presume that as you base your views regarding tongues on the Dark Age of the Church, where you feel this somehow justifies your view that tongues have ceased, that this means that you also reject the Doctrine of Justification by Faith?

This has really gotten bizarre now. What might make you think that Justification by Faith ever ceased? Or could. It is not an action to be engaged in like talking. It is either true or it is not true.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

We find out about the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit by reading and studying the scriptures using the established principles of exegesis, whereas charismatic and pentecostol teachers distort the scriptures to try to remold the Spirit's work to conform to their own preconceived ideas and "experiences", using the fallacy of eisogesis.

 

[swordsman1]

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

Every believer is commanded to pray in the Spirit in Ephesians 6, but that is not speaking in tongues.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

How could you fail to notice where Paul clearly equates tongues with speaking foreign human languages in 1 Cor 14:21-22:

"In the Law it is written: “With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”. Tongues, then, are a sign, ..."​

Show me where in scripture Paul tells us that tongues is a non-human language. I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer as I have asked you the same question numerous times before and you have never provided an answer.

In the absence of any redefinition of the gift it must be presumed to be the same as the only description of tongues that scripture provides in Acts 2.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

And you are certainly the master at doing that seeing as the majority of your posts on this subject contains derogatory ad hominem slurs and sarcastic remarks directed at those who do not share your view.

 

[swordsman1]

You need to go to 1 Cor 14 where Paul goes into a fair amount of detail to explain that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that they will always be given within inarticulate tongues - this should not be hard to grasp, it is something that is often taught in Sunday school programs.

Paul said nothing of the sort, as you know full well. It beggars belief that you repeatedly misrepresent Paul knowing that such statements are false.

 

[swordsman1]

Your quite right, well at least the ability of the broader Christian community to pray in the Spirit was certainly curtailed by Rome for centuries, where anyone who went against their demands were regularly put to the stake.

Where is your evidence that the Roman Catholic church engaged in a mass persecution of tongues speakers? Show us the documented proof. Or is this another thing you just made up? Tongues ceased because God withdrew the gift (just as Paul prophesied would happen) not because tongues speakers were persecuted.

 

[swordsman1]

Temporary . . . where does the Bible say that the Manifestations of the Spirit and that our ability to pray in the Spirit as supposed to be temporary; other than with temporary meaning with the Eschaton where the Lord returns with his Kingdom.

Paul told us that tongues would cease in 1 Cor 13:8, and he made no mention of the Eschaton when he did so.

 

[swordsman1]

As much as I need to compile a list of what many of the early Latin churchmen said regarding tongues, it appears that most of them were guessing and if for those who claimed that some speak in known human languages then they were obviously making this up to suit the moment.

Well when you get round to doing your research you will discover that the early Church Fathers (eg Origen, Irenaeus) from around 150 AD reported that tongues was still present in the church and affirmed that it was foreign human languages that were being spoken. Are you suggesting they were lying? The later Fathers (eg Chrysostom, Augustine) around 350-400 AD also affirmed they were foreign human languages and reported the gift had ceased (coinciding with the distribution of the completed canon and maturing of the church), just as Paul prophesied it would.

The idea of tongues being a non-human language is purely a twentieth century invention.

 

[swordsman1]

30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me scatters abroad.
31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 And whosoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaks against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
Matthew 12:24-32

Ah I was wondering when the old "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" scare tactic would be wheeled out.

 

[Ken Rank]

As a tongues speaking Pentecostal I certainly recognise that all those who have confessed Jesus as their Lord and Saviour that they are in fact Spirit filled, which of course goes against the views of those who are classic-Pentecostals such as the AoG who hold to the position that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to our initially being sealed in the Spirit, but this is an increasingly minimal view where most Pentecostals such as myself now acknowledge that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is soteriological and not necessarily one of subsequence.

The only issue I would have with either of your replies to me, and I may have read this wrong so feel free to correct me... is that "baptism of the Holy Spirit" doesn't = speaking in tongues. To be immersed into the Spirit is just that, being immersed into the Spirit. That action manifests itself in many different ways, one of which is tongues but that is not exclusive by any stretch of the imagination. Here in Kentucky (my world view is wider than some who have been raised in Kentucky seeing I moved here from New Jersey but am also part of a ministry that reaches world wide) when around the Pentecostals I hear "Baptized into the Spirit" and it means "speaking in tongues to them." I have sat through a number of discussions with pastors, sat quietly allowing them to make their case based on Scripture... and in the end there is no way, scripturally, to get "speaking in tongues only" from "baptism in the Holy Spirit." It CAN be a manifestation of that act, but not the sole manifestation of that act.

 

[Ken Rank]

What you described is not scriptural and not what speaking in tongues was for. 2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

When you can come to grips with not contradicting God's Word, you may learn something.

"When you come to grips" is not words that should be used in a discussion between two believers. That line places you above me, not Him above us.

What I described is Scriptural... you seem to... have an emotional attachment to your position so I will let it be. The Acts 2 point is that the disciples spoke in OTHER languages and those from the nations who were there heard them in their own language. That is exactly what the Scripture states on Acts 2, which means, it cannot be used to support the teaching that many Pentecostals use it for.

Be blessed.
Ken

 

[Righttruth]

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.

Please quote a verse wherein it tells we pray in the Spirit. Are you claiming more than what Paul claimed?

1 Corinthians 14

2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.
14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

The Holy Spirit never intercedes for anybody by uttering unknown tongue (gibberish)

 

[Righttruth]

What spirituality? You completely discount 1 Corinthians 14:2 which is the Word of God, so your spirit is not of God. So what does that leave?

1 Corinthians 14
2 For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

My objection is that you are mixing up person'spirit with the Holy Spirit.