Speaking in Tongues - Are we all wrong?

[swordsman1]

So - you were not just quoting scripture? You were correcting people?

Yes, that is one of the uses of scripture: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Tim 3:16)

Note that the emphasis is on what they heard not what was being done by those they were hearing.

So tell us, what did the crowd hear? Here's the verse to help you:

"And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."​

Why on earth would I want that? The scriptures say what they say and nothing more. That's true whether 1000 commentators assume something else.

So dozens of professional theologians and seminary professors have got it wrong, but only you and a tiny minority of armchair theologians have the right interpretation? The overwhelming consensus of commentators disagree with you, even the charismatic ones:

Wayne Grudem - Systematic Theology
Now at Pentecost speech in tongues was in known languages that were understood by those who heard: "each one heard them speaking in his own language” (Acts 2:6). But once again the speech was not understood by the speakers, for what caused the amazement was that Galileans were speaking all these different languages (v. 7). It seems, therefore, that at times speaking in tongues may involve speech in actual human languages, sometimes even languages that are understood by some of those who hear.

D A Carson - Showing the Spirit:
It must be insisted that in Luke’s description of the utterances on the day of Pentecost we are dealing with xenoglossia—real, human languages never learned by the speakers. Williams’s summary of what went on cannot easily be squared with the text: he claims “that sounds uttered by the speakers seemed to some Jewish hearers as identifiable words in languages dimly recalled. It is even possible that interspersed among inarticulate utterances would be actual identifiable words. This occurs sometimes in modern glossolalia.” This will not do. We saw in the third chapter that the word for “tongue” (γλωσσα, glossa) cannot easily be reduced in meaning to free verbalization bearing no cognitive content; and Luke attests that the hearers on the day of Pentecost asked in amazement how they could hear distinctive utterances (lit.) in their own “dialects” (τ ’ιδ ᾳ διαλ χτῳt idia dialekt , 2:8). What they heard was not an occasional word accidentally intruded into a stream of lexical gibberish, a mere statistical inevitability, but “the wonders of God” (2:11). These wonders were enunciated in the languages of recognized linguistic groups (Parthians, Medes, Elamites). It goes beyond the text to argue that this was a miracle of hearing rather than one of speech, for Luke’s purpose is to associate the descent of the Spirit with the Spirit’s activity among the believers, not to postulate a miracle of the Spirit among those who were still unbelievers. 3

Craig Keener - Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1:
Some scholars suggest a hearing miracle rather than the disciples speaking in various languages; even some early interpreters held this view. But some of the suggested background for this position is based on a misinterpretation of ancient texts. More important, this proposal does not match what Luke himself says. Luke reports their speaking "other languages" before mentioning that anyone hears them (2.4), and emphasizes that the Spirit enables them to speak this way; further, the gift recurs later as a supernatural sign with no indication that such hearing took place (10:45-46; 19:6).382) Moreover, in his work, Luke emphasizes not so much the Spirit producing receptivity in crowds but God working through those who are agents of his Spirit (4:8, 31; 6:3, 10; 10:38; 13:9-11; 21:4, 11). As Max Turner notes, Luke "Would not wish to suggest that the apostolic band merely prattled incomprehensibly while God worked the yet greater miracle of interpretation of tongues in the unbelievers."​

And those are just charismatic theologians. I can quote plenty of others who say the same.

And - if God had meant to say the disciples were in the temple instead of a house - He would have said that.

"When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment".

They came together in the temple when they were already there?

Apparently the room from which they heard the sound coming was in the temple?

I know you believe what you are saying happened. But none of the scriptures in Acts shed enough light on the instances of speaking in tongues throughout the book to clear things up.

The word house (οἶκος) doesn't just mean a dwelling house. It can mean any kind of building, including the Temple or any of its associated structures.

Where else in Jerusalem would thousands of foreigners be gathered for the Feast of Pentecost? A family house? Seriously?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'd really like to just let you go. But you simply are not dealing honestly here and someone needs to keep calling you on it.
Marvin Knox said: ↑

So - you were not just quoting scripture? You were correcting people?

Yes, that is one of the uses of scripture: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (2 Tim 3:16)

You said in an earlier post:

I never said it applied to anyone on this thread. I was pointing out the teaching of Paul on the issue.

Just who are you correcting if not someone who has posted on this thread?

So tell us, what did the crowd hear? Here's the verse to help you: "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

You don't need to quote the scripture for me. I have never said that each one was not hearing them speak in his own language. In fact that is exactly what I have said. Why on earth would I not agree with what the scripture clearly says?

Craig Keener - Acts: An Exegetical Commentary : Volume 1: "Some scholars suggest a hearing miracle rather than the disciples speaking in various languages; even some early interpreters held this view. But some of the suggested background for this position is based on a misinterpretation of ancient texts. ........

Some early scholars held that view. It is hardly far fetched for some to hold that view now.

"Some" of the background that is used for this position is based on a misinterpretation of ancient texts. That is hardly the case now as the vast majority of people, myself included, read modern translation which avoided such mistakes when they were being compiled.

And those are just charismatic theologians. I can quote plenty of others who say the same.

Why would I want you to do that?

Where else in Jerusalem would thousands of foreigners be gathered for the Feast of Pentecost? A family house? Seriously?

Riiiiiight - and perhaps they brought sleeping bags and slept out in the court of the gentiles.

So dozens of professional theologians and seminary professors have got it wrong,

Who do you imagine has said that they got it wrong? Surely not me. If you believe that - please provide a quote from one of my posts.

...... but only you and a tiny minority of armchair theologians have the right interpretation?

I have no interpretation I hold to. Unlike with your case - where have I ever published a dogmatic interpretation?

...... The overwhelming consensus of commentators disagree with you, even the charismatic ones:

How do they disagree with me when I have never published a statement proclaiming my belief. And, unlike you, I most certainly would not proclaim my position as being what the scriptures clearly say.

Unlike me - you seem to hear what you want to hear and lay out your opinions as if they are facts when they are not.

Not only do you misrepresent me by saying that I hold a certain position and stand firmly against another (like your opinion for instance) - you ignore what I have said to the contrary, even when I repeat it for you.

The disciples may well have actually mouthed the words the crowd heard. I doesn't effect me either way. I'm neutral on the subject.

What I object to is your insistence that the scriptures say what they do not actually say and that your interpretation of events is a fact.

It is absolutely amazing to me that you could miss my clear objection to your stating dogmatically what the scriptures say in Acts 2.

But what is doubly amazing is that you believe I myself could hold firmly to a dogmatic view from the opposing camp - falling into the same ditch you have fallen into.

The scriptures leave the situation open to interpretation as to exactly what was going on. Witness the early commentators positions which even you referenced for us through Craig Keener.

One more time (and hopefully for the last time) - you hold to the view that tongues are not for today. Fine. I disagree with you based on the scriptures and their explicit directions to the church concerning dealing with the subject.

Why it's important to you to insist that the disciples actually mouthed the words being heard - when you don't think it goes on today can only be for one reason as I see things.

Contrary to the warning in the scripture - you obviously despise speaking in tongues and will go to any length to supposedly show that they are being done wrong today. The length you have gone to in this case is to state dogmatically that tongues were always spoken known languages. You do so in spite of the scriptures not telling us that in Acts 2 and, in fact, leaving us with the distinct understanding through the writings of Paul that they we not known languages in some cases - such as praying in the Spirit.

Now - you obviously are too proud to admit where you have gone wrong. I don't expect it of you.

But please - do not tell people I hold dogmatically to one position on the subject.

The only position I hold dogmatically to concerning these things of the Spirit is that we will not be given something evil if we ask for something we see in the scriptures as being something which seems to be the will of the Holy Spirit.

I want people like you to leave God's people alone with the Word of God and prayer and allow them to deal with this subject one on one with God without your propaganda. You are not the Holy Spirit. People can deal with God directly on the subject of tongues without your input.

"People like you" includes equally those from the other side of the spectrum whom I have also taken to task on not only their practices but their insistence that their way is the only way when the scriptures leave things a bit open.

I arrived at my position related to my personal practice of speaking in tongues without succumbing to the hostile anti tongues input of people like yourself OR the beyond scripture input from many and even most Pentecostal/charismatic movement types.

The Holy Spirit and I came to an understanding and it works for me. I like to think that every believer who has the Holy Spirit to guide them can come to an equally happy and useful position on the subject and practice of tongues.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How can praying in tongues in private be the will of God when scripture tells us that the purpose of spiritual gifts is for the benefit of others?

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others,"​

You are ignoring the parts where Paul says that if there is no interpreter the person should speak to himself and to God, and where else would you do that? In public before men like the Pharisees who loved to be seen of men, or to go into the private prayer closet and pray in secret like Jesus said?

If Paul said that he would that they all spoke in tongues, and that he spoke in tongues more than them all, where do you think he did that? He wouldn't have prayed in tongues in front of others in church meetings. He would have done that in private before God, following the instructions of Jesus to go somewhere private in order to pray.

I agree that many pray out loud in tongues during church services because they like to be seen by others to show that they love Jesus and are spiritual. Jesus said that if they received the praise of men that's all the reward they would get.

When Paul talks in general about praying in tongues he then says "...but in the church..." This strongly suggests that there are other places where people can pray in tongues, and as I said, the only other place to pray other than in the public church service, is the private prayer room.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You seriously think that thousands of foreigners were crammed inside a normal dwelling house when the disciples spoke in tongues? The place where the foreigners were assembled was the house of the Lord, the Temple, where thousands of foreign Jewish pilgrims had gathered for the Feast of Pentecost.

The language of the Temple was Hebrew so when the local Jews, who were not expecting to hear any other language, heard a language they didn't recognize they naturally presumed the people were drunk and were speaking gibberish. Somebody speaking Swahili sounds like gibberish to me. And if I heard a white person unexpectedly speaking Swahili at an all-English speaking club I too might think they were drunk.




The scriptures tell us plainly what the crowd heard - it was the disciples speaking in the languages of the foreigners, not a voice in their heads. To say otherwise is to denying what scripture plainly says:

Acts 2:6 "And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language."

Acts 2:11 "Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God.”​

Notice the word 'tongues' (glossa) in v11 is referring to human languages, the same word that appears in verse 4 - "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them". The word 'glossa' means language. To hold that the "tongues" in Acts 2:4 means unintelligible utterances would contradict its usage in Acts 2:11 where it clearly refers to human languages. Notice also the plural tongues in verse 4. The disciples spoke in multiple languages.

Verse 4 says the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples enabling them to speak in other languages. There is no mention of the Spirit falling on the unregenerate crowd and performing a miracle of hearing in their ears. That is pure conjecture and goes beyond what is written.

There can be absolutely no doubt that the disciples spoke in foreign human languages. The idea they spoke in unintelligible utterances is completely alien to scripture. You are committing the fallacy of eisegesis - forcing your own preconceived ideas into the text.

If you wish I can post about a dozen commentaries on Acts by respected evangelical scholars that agree with my position. How many commentaries agree with you? Can you show us even one?

Firstly, there were just 120 in the upper room. When they got filled with the Spirit, they went outside where the crowd had gathered to see what was going on.

The assembled people saw that the 120 were "uneducated Galileans". This meant that they would have spoken Aramaic and not Hebrew, because Hebrew was the language of educated people. If the 120 had Hebrew as their first language, they would not have been identified as being "uneducated". What amazed the assembled crowd was that a group of people whom they saw as speaking only Aramaic, were speaking all their regional dialects.

 

[Hillsage]

Riiiiiight - and perhaps they brought sleeping bags and slept out in the court of the gentiles.

Now - you obviously are too proud to admit where you have gone wrong. I don't expect it of you.

While I have no problem doing it, I'm going to agree with SWORDSMAN's understanding of what happened on Pentecost, but only 'in part'. And it will be in disagreement with both you and OSCARR. The only sad part is this. SWORDSMAN got his OIKIOS teaching from me a couple years back, when debating this very same subject. But true to him, he never admitted to its truth then, and gives me no acknowledgment now. I don't blame him though I'm sure he's totally forgot that fact. But here is the teaching as revealed to me by the Holy Spirit IMO, and typed up by me in October of 2016, as I sought for truth on this subject...if you're interested.

The only 'addition' to the teaching I'm sharing is some 'bolded' portions with the very words mentioned by him, along with my full quote of ***1Cor 14:16. I post that, since it was just recently also shared in another Corinthian verse concerning the "ungifted". A teaching which was also another revelation/teaching I received from the Holy Spirit's leading at that same time. IMO IMO of course IMHO.

TONGUES and HOUSE/OIKOS of GOD on PENTECOST

Tradition has taught that these 120 were all at someone’s residential house. Uh that's a pretty big house for a bunch of poor 'out of work' evangelists. OK, someone rich who was a Christian invited them all over to ’their mansion’ to celebrate PENTECOST. But there's another POV here. Granted I got it from the Spirit IMO, IMO, IMHO. The word for house is Oikos. And the house of God is also Oikos. And what ‘house’ were they supposed to celebrate Pentecost in? God’s house, or someone else’s house?

MAT 12:4 How he entered into the house/oikos of God,
MAT 21:13 And said unto them, It is written, My house/oikos shall be called the house of prayer;

And since it was the day of Pentecost, what house would you expect the disciples and Jews from everywhere else, to be in celebrating????? How about the house/Oikos of GOD? It was pretty big right. And different groups could be congregated together and yet separated greatly.

ACT 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house/oikos where they were sitting.

So, what 'tongue' might they have all received FIRST when the Spirit came UPON them? Why not the tongue for their born again holy spirit? And why couldn't it have been a language that was unintelligible to all the other Jews who were AT THIS SAME HOUSE/OIKOS and first hearing what? Not languages they understood, but "NOISE/SOUND/PHONE". And guess what this 'noise/sound' may be translated as? BESTIAL OR ARTIFICIAL!!!! Or, as a 'tongue talker' I like to think, "angelic/heavenly" (1Co 13:1) and the "unlearned" like to call it 'gibberish/babbel'. (1Co 14:16 “unlearned/ungifted/outsider/non understanding”)

just added; ***1CO 14:16 Otherwise if you bless in the spirit only, how will the one who fills the place of the ungifted say the "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not know what you are saying?

Strong's 5456 phone: a tone (articulate, bestial or artificial); by impl. an address (for any purpose), saying or language

After hearing this bestial/artificial sounding "sound/noise" what did these Jews celebrating Pentecost a little ways off in this great big HOUSE/TEMPLE/OIKOS then do?

ACT 2:5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
6 And at this sound/noise/PHONE the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

NOW after they "came together" with the disciples they 'then' hear the disciples speaking not in the 'noise' language of their spirit, but they are manifesting the charisma "gift of tongues" from The Holy Spirit which is in the visitor's own languages, and the disciples are no longer speaking in the prayer tongue of 'their holy spirit'.

 

[Marvin Knox]

While I have no problem doing it, I'm going to agree with SWORDSMAN's understanding of what happened on Pentecost, but only 'in part'. And it will be in disagreement with both you and OSCARR.

Actually it isn't in disagreement with me since I do hold dogmatically to either the position of swordsman or anyone else. I happen to believe that there are several possibilities of which swordsman's is one.

Some believe that the disciples actually "spoke" or mouthed the foreign languages and some believe that they were tongues similar to those spoken later in the book of Acts and at Corinth - God giving the understanding to some who were hearing it spoken.

My believe about tongues and how I practice it wouldn't be changes one bit if it turned out that there was firm scriptural proof one way or the other.

My beef with swordsman is his insistence that the scriptures make his position the only position to hold. He holds that firm line because it enables him to more easily refute tongues as practiced by people like me.

NOW after they "came together" with the disciples they 'then' hear the disciples speaking not in the 'noise' language of their spirit, but they are manifesting the charisma "gift of tongues" from The Holy Spirit which is in the visitor's own languages, and the disciples are no longer speaking in the prayer tongue of 'their holy spirit'.

That is one way to look at what happened at Pentecost and, as with swordsman's rendition, it wouldn't effect my belief or practice concerning tongues in the slightest.

Tradition has taught that these 120 were all at someone’s residential house.

As with many doctrines, tradition may have it wrong.

The firm conviction that all of the 120 mentioned in Acts chapter one were the same people filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter two is the driving force behind trying to find a bigger "house" for them.

Actually the passage in chapter one does not say that the 120 brethren addressed by Peter at that first "apostolic council" - where he made the disastrous decision to jump the gun on the coming Holy Spirit's leading and draw straws to determine the next apostle - were either in the upper room the apostles returned to after the ascension 10 days earlier in Acts one or the house where they were "all" filled with the Spirit in Acts two.

"At that time", as the words say in Acts one, does not necessarily mean the exact time when they were in the upper room praying with the Mary, Jesus brothers and the women.

The events of Pentecost were some 10 days after the events of Acts one.

I have no problem with seeing things differently than that. It may well be that the 120 were immediately crammed into one room in Jerusalem with Mary etc. and went right on into that first council.

As I have said - I have no problem with thinking that the coming of the Holy Spirit and the tongues which ensued took place in the temple.

It's just that the scriptures leave things a little vague about the exact truth of what happened and where.

If you (like the swordsman) were making this a dogmatic point in order to build further doctrine on it - I take you to task as well as him.

But you don't seem to be doing that (although you likely think your interpretation is the correct one - who wouldn't?).

 

[Hillsage]

Actually it isn't in disagreement with me since I do hold dogmatically to either the position of swordsman or anyone else. I happen to believe that there are several possibilities of which swordsman's is one.

Just so you know I do read posts, I think you meant "I do NOT hold dogmatically", which is a very smart thing to do, as a Christian IMO. I hold dogmatically to very little, and most of 'that' concerns what makes us 'brothers in Christ'. And most here wouldn't even agree with me on 'who all' that includes. Oh well, I can wait until the day that 'we fully know as we were fully known", to see that I was right.

Some believe that the disciples actually "spoke" or mouthed the foreign languages and some believe that they were tongues similar to those spoken later in the book of Acts and at Corinth - God giving the understanding to some who were hearing it spoken.

I know that's your position, though I disagree and said so, for my reasons earlier...eg no biblical "gift of hearing" for unbelievers. That being said, I am also aware of those cases where others heard something more than unknown tongues, which is where I assume you're probably coming from. So let's talk about 'that verse' which you appear to be alluding to.

My believe about tongues and how I practice it wouldn't be changes one bit if it turned out that there was firm scriptural proof one way or the other.

That's what makes most of the ignorant "fighting for the truth" here, a joke in the eyes of God IMO. I went to a seminar 700 miles away with an elder years ago. The speaker told a story; "I am sure that the day man 'invented' theology, which is defined as 'the study of God'....that God must have looked down from heaven, rolled his eyes and said, Oh boy this is going to be good.".... NOT!!!

The firm conviction that all of the 120 mentioned in Acts chapter one were the same people filled with the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter two is the driving force behind trying to find a bigger "house" for them.

As was the point of my teaching.

But you don't seem to be doing that (although you likely think your interpretation is the correct one - who wouldn't?).

You "think"???? My personal conviction is this; It is good to have the opinion that I am right, but it is bad to have the opinion that EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG!!!!

 

[swordsman1]

Just who are you correcting if not someone who has posted on this thread?

Follow the thread back. I was responding to Oscarr's post where he said people he knew asked for the gift of tongues. But contrary to your false accusation I never said that applied to any poster here.

You don't need to quote the scripture for me. I have never said that each one was not hearing them speak in his own language. In fact that is exactly what I have said. Why on earth would I not agree with what the scripture clearly says?

Then you agree with me. As scripture plainly states, what the foreigners heard was the disciples themselves speaking in their languages, not a voice in their heads automatically translating the disciples words.

Some early scholars held that view. It is hardly far fetched for some to hold that view now.

Yes, you are not the first person to come up with that theory. Some Pentecostal writers have postulated the idea in order to try to attempt to biblically justify their experience of free vocalization. And before that one or two ancient commentators suggested the disciples spoke in Hebrew and it was translated in the ears of the crowd. But those theories have been thoroughly refuted. There is no respected evangelical commentator that I am aware of who holds that view. I am currently compiling a compendium of commentaries on this passage. So far I have 14 scanned in, with a few more to go. I will post them as a pdf on this thread when it is complete.

I have no interpretation I hold to. Unlike with your case - where have I ever published a dogmatic interpretation?

Who do you imagine has said that they got it wrong? Surely not me. If you believe that - please provide a quote from one of my posts.

How do they disagree with me when I have never published a statement proclaiming my belief.

Not only do you misrepresent me by saying that I hold a certain position and stand firmly against another (like your opinion for instance) - you ignore what I have said to the contrary, even when I repeat it for you.

Huh? You have repeatedly asserted that the disciples did not speak in foreign languages:

"The description we have in Acts 2 is not of a miraculous ability to speak in known languages. The description in Acts 2 is the hearing in the native language of some what sounded to other people like the speakers were drunk."

"But I do not believe that tongues, as spoken by the people in Acts 2, or later on in the Book of Acts, or in the church at Corinth were any of the known languages of the earth."

"I know there is no place where it is taught in the scriptures that the people speaking in tongues were "speaking" known languages."​

The disciples may well have actually mouthed the words the crowd heard. I doesn't effect me either way. I'm neutral on the subject.

But I'm glad you are at least starting to see sense.

What I object to is your insistence that the scriptures say what they do not actually say and that your interpretation of events is a fact.

The scriptures state that the disciples spoke in foreign languages. The plain reading of the passage cannot imply anything else. And there is all the other biblical evidence I gave that supports this view, but which you simply ignored.

Contrary to the warning in the scripture - you obviously despise speaking in tongues and will go to any length to supposedly show that they are being done wrong today.

I would not despise the genuine NT gift of tongues (if it was around today), but I despise the counterfeit gifts and the false teachings that have been propagated by the Pentecostal and charismatic movements in the last 100 years. And I will continue to contend earnestly for the faith and defend the Holy Spirit against the false doctrines that have recently infiltrated the Christian Church.

 

[swordsman1]

You are ignoring the parts where Paul says that if there is no interpreter the person should speak to himself and to God

Ok lets look at that verse.

1 Cor 14:27-28 "If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God."​

Does it say if there is no interpreter the tongues speaker should go home and pray in tongues in private? No, the context remains firmly in the church: "he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.". He is to remain in the church and keep silent, and only pray silently to God. Silent means silent. He is not to speak or even whisper in tongues. To speak in tongues without others being edified would be contrary to the stated purpose of the gifts in 1 Cor 12:7 and 1 Peter 4:10.

When Paul talks in general about praying in tongues he then says "...but in the church..." This strongly suggests that there are other places where people can pray in tongues, and as I said, the only other place to pray other than in the public church service, is the private prayer room.

Paul wouldn't have spoke in tongues in private - that would be contrary to scripture. Outside the church, a feasible alternative would be in public places on his missionary journeys as a confirming sign to unbelievers, just as the disciples did at Pentecost.

 

[swordsman1]

They are minor quibbling points, but...

Firstly, there were just 120 in the upper room. When they got filled with the Spirit, they went outside where the crowd had gathered to see what was going on.

I don't beleive they were in the upper room at Pentecost. They went to the upper room shortly after Christ's ascension and Acts 2:1 starts "When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place." So there was some amount of time between being in the upper room and Pentecost, and "they were all together in one place" indicates a different place to the room previously mentioned. The place might have been a dwelling house and after they started speaking in tongues they subsequently moved from the house to the Temple courts where the thousands of foreign pilgrims were gathered, but that means there is an odd and notable omission in Luke's narrative. More likely is the "house" referred to is the house of the Lord, and the whole event took place around the Temple.

The assembled people saw that the 120 were "uneducated Galileans". This meant that they would have spoken Aramaic and not Hebrew, because Hebrew was the language of educated people. If the 120 had Hebrew as their first language, they would not have been identified as being "uneducated". What amazed the assembled crowd was that a group of people whom they saw as speaking only Aramaic, were speaking all their regional dialects.

The disciples were devout Jews and so would have been taught Hebrew as that is the language of the Torah which was read out in the synagogues every week.

 

[swordsman1]

The only sad part is this. SWORDSMAN got his OIKIOS teaching from me a couple years back, when debating this very same subject. But true to him, he never admitted to its truth then, and gives me no acknowledgment now. I don't blame him though I'm sure he's totally forgot that fact.

No I didn't. Show me the thread.

 

[Marvin Knox]

As scripture plainly states, what the foreigners heard was the disciples themselves speaking in their languages, not a voice in their heads automatically translating the disciples words.

I just looked at your words and it was the thoughts in my head which gave them meaning.

But those theories have been thoroughly refuted.

No they have not.

While they may well be incorrect ideas about what happened - they have never been and can not be refuted. Reason being that the scriptures only say what they say and nothing more. The opinions of those who read the scriptures have no authoritative status concerning what is and is not what went on exactly.

Huh? You have repeatedly asserted that the disciples did not speak in foreign languages:

As I read those quotes - there is nothing in them that states that those ideas are the only correct ideas about what happened.

For me to be dogmatic about these things, as you are being, would be as ridiculous as your dogmatism is.

But I'm glad you are at least starting to see sense.

There is no "starting to see sense" to it. This is the position I have always taken.

At no time have I ever said that your ideas on the subject may not prove to be correct when we see more clearly on the other side.

What I have said is that your insistence that they are proved right by the scriptures in and of themselves is not correct.

The scriptures state that the disciples spoke in foreign languages. The plain reading of the passage cannot imply anything else.

Of course it can and, as you yourself admit, others before me as well as my contemporaries see that it can imply something else.

And there is all the other biblical evidence I gave that supports this view, but which you simply ignored.

The only evidence matters is "biblical evidence" and you have provided none.

The passage of concern to us ends in chapter 2 of the Book of Acts and it only says what it says - not more.

Any "biblical evidence" found in the scriptures is only found in the Corinthian letter and it more likely supports the idea of words uttered which have not understanding until the Lord gives the ability to understand them.

I would not despise the genuine NT gift of tongues (if it was around today), but I despise the counterfeit gifts and the false teachings that have been propagated by the Pentecostal and charismatic movements in the last 100 years. And I will continue to contend earnestly for the faith and defend the Holy Spirit against the false doctrines that have recently infiltrated the Christian Church.

You and I both.

I suppose you could try to correct those folks where they have and are going wrong and I would gladly join you and help you out?

You probably could use all the help you could get in that case.

Because - so long as you teach the ridiculous position that there came an end to the gifts right after the ink dried on the instructions God gave us for their use - IMO it is not very likely that the Holy Spirit would give you any insight which would allow you to effectively correct those who do believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are doing their best to enter into all that God has for them.

I'm really going to try very hard now to leave you to your propagation of false dogma and hope that the Holy Spirit will help God's people in understanding where you have gone wrong and why you have gone wrong.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Just so you know I do read posts, I think you meant "I do NOT hold dogmatically", which is a very smart thing to do, as a Christian IMO. I hold dogmatically to very little, and most of 'that' concerns what makes us 'brothers in Christ'. And most here wouldn't even agree with me on 'who all' that includes. Oh well, I can wait until the day that 'we fully know as we were fully known", to see that I was right.


I know that's your position, though I disagree and said so, for my reasons earlier...eg no biblical "gift of hearing" for unbelievers. That being said, I am also aware of those cases where others heard something more than unknown tongues, which is where I assume you're probably coming from. So let's talk about 'that verse' which you appear to be alluding to.


That's what makes most of the ignorant "fighting for the truth" here, a joke in the eyes of God IMO. I went to a seminar 700 miles away with an elder years ago. The speaker told a story; "I am sure that the day man 'invented' theology, which is defined as 'the study of God'....that God must have looked down from heaven, rolled his eyes and said, Oh boy this is going to be good.".... NOT!!!


As was the point of my teaching.


You "think"???? My personal conviction is this; It is good to have the opinion that I am right, but it is bad to have the opinion that EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG!!!!

Thanks Hillsage. I appreciate both your tone and your opinions.

I'm going to try to leave off this thread now.

I grow weary of this person's unwillingness to even admit a little of where he is wrong.

I don't think and behave that way and I can't stomach those proud individuals who do.

 

[Hillsage]

No I didn't. Show me the thread.

You show me where you ever heard it otherwise. Because I've never heard it taught before from anyone before, or since it was revealed to me, until now from you.

 

[swordsman1]

I just looked at your words and it was the thoughts in my head which gave them meaning.

Oh, so it is no longer a 'miracle of hearing', but a 'miracle of thought'.

No they have not.

While they may well be incorrect ideas about what happened - they have never been and can not be refuted. Reason being that the scriptures only say what they say and nothing more. The opinions of those who read the scriptures have no authoritative status concerning what is and is not what went on exactly.

An idea is refuted if it can be proved to be unfeasible from the text using the established techniques of hermeneutics. The plain reading of the text and the supporting evidence renders the 'miracle of hearing' idea unfeasible. The only way it can be justified is by using fallacies such the eisegesis you employ - having your own preconceived idea about what tongues is (the unintelligible utterances you speak) and then twisting the plain meaning of the passage to force that idea into the text.

For me to be dogmatic about these things, as you are being, would be as ridiculous as your dogmatism is.

You were being dogmatic. You didn't use phrases like "most likely", you came straight out with the emphatic assertion that the disciples did not speak in foreign languages. Only now, after seeing the weight of biblical evidence, are you changing your tune.

I suppose you could try to correct those folks where they have and are going wrong and I would gladly join you and help you out?

You probably could use all the help you could get in that case.

Because - so long as you teach the ridiculous position that there came an end to the gifts right after the ink dried on the instructions God gave us for their use - IMO it is not very likely that the Holy Spirit would give you any insight which would allow you to effectively correct those who do believe in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and are doing their best to enter into all that God has for them.

I'm not just opposed to the crazy doctrines and practices such those espoused by Hinn, Copeland, the NAR, et al. Even mainstream charismatic and pentecostal doctrine is wrong. The claimed gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing that are supposed to have reappeared in the last 100 years simply do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

 

[swordsman1]

You show me where you ever heard it otherwise. Because I've never heard it taught before from anyone before, or since it was revealed to me, until now from you.

That interpretation is suggested by Keener, Ironside, and a number of other commentators on Acts.

 

[Marvin Knox]

........you came straight out with the emphatic assertion that the disciples did not speak in foreign languages. Only now, after seeing the weight of biblical evidence, are you changing your tune.

I don't recall the instance you're speaking of.

I still intend it to be my last communication with you on this subject. But if I am truly "changing my tune" I certainly want the chance to apologize to you and to correct anything I have said both for your benefit and for the benefit of everyone reading along.

Please supply the quote for me so I can do that. Thanks!

P.S.
By the way:
Marvin Knox said: ↑
I just looked at your words and it was the thoughts in my head which gave them meaning.

Oh, so it is no longer a 'miracle of hearing', but a 'miracle of thought'.

Since you seem to have trouble keeping up with me ---- listen very carefully.

Words were actually spoken out loud and hearing actually happened at Pentecost - not so here in the forum.

The reading and processing of the words posted by you here on this thread is a function of the thing between the ears - not of the ears themselves.

Capiche?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm not just opposed to the crazy doctrines and practices such those espoused by Hinn, Copeland, the NAR, et al. Even mainstream charismatic and pentecostal doctrine is wrong. The claimed gifts of tongues, prophecy, and healing that are supposed to have reappeared in the last 100 years simply do not match the biblical descriptions of those gifts.

I am holding for dear life to the arms of my chair so I don't sucked down into the "black hole" of this thread.

Because of the nature of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, there are going to be shonky as well as sound doctrine. This is because each individual church is autonomous, therefore if a "big name" guy gets a "revelation" then there is no one to evaluate it. Also (which I don't believe, by the way), there is the belief among many Pentecostals that they can receive "extra revelation" through the Spirit that might not be clearly set out in the Bible. This is where the discipling/shepherding movement, oneness, speaking loudly in tongues during services, pushing people over and saying it is being slain in the Spirit, public exorcisms, "if I believe it then it is true" (the Word of Faith doctrine taken too far), prosperity doctrine, demands for tithing instead of free will giving, just a name a few. I believe that none of those things are taught in the New Testament, but have come because some guy has got "a revelation" about these things.

We have already had some very interesting and lively discussions about modern use of tongues, and we will have to agree to disagree about that, but I will say that it is a tragedy that the misuse of the gift has overshadowed the true manifestation and has really muddied the waters about it. For that reason I take the position (quoting Paul) that I don't judge others, and I don't allow others to judge me in my personal devotions (including tongues), and I don't even judge myself, but I allow the judgment to come from the Lord. Now that is not to mean that I am right and you are wrong. That would be arrogance on my part.

But I do have a question concerning a sentence in your post (that I have quoted):

Have you read about the ministry of Kathryn Khulman? She never preached healing, but preached the gospel in order to get people saved, yet there are testimonies, attested by medical experts in each case, of people being instantly cured of terminal cancers, heart conditions, and other incurable conditions. Someone whose grandson had been lame and had got up out of his wheelchair and walked, after not being able to walk since an infant, thanked Kathryn, and she replied, "Don't thank me. I had nothing to do with it." Such was the humility of the woman.

Now, how do you explain those healings. What would you say to that 12 year old boy who had never been able to walk, getting out of his wheelchair and walking perfectly, just by being in that meeting where Kathryn Khulman preached the gospel? Are you going to tell him that his healing is genuine or false?

My question is genuine, because Kathryn Khulman's ministry was unique in people being spontaneously healed in her meetings, and no other evangelist has ever had those events happen (no matter how hard they have tried!) You can see that this is quite different from someone laying hands on a sick person and saying, "You are healed" while the symptoms are still present. In Kathryn's meetings, people came up on to the stage to testify about healing that had already taken place without her previous knowledge of them.

(I understand that this is a bit off topic, but interesting.)

 

[swordsman1]

As promised I have now produced a compendium of 28 commentaries on Acts 2:4-13. They all take the view that the disciples spoke in foreign languages at Pentecost. I couldn't find a single respected commentator who took the view that it was a miracle of hearing in the crowd. I have attached a pdf to this post that includes excerpts from the following authors:

Charles C. Ryrie, Professor of systematic theology at Dallas Theological Seminar
Ben Witherington, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary
C K Barrett, Professor of Divinity at the University of Durham
Jack Cottrell, professor of theology at Cincinnati Christian University
Darrell L. Bock, Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary
R. C. H. Lenski, professor of theology at Capital University
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Dennis Gaertner, professor of New Testament at Johnson Bible College
John B. Polhill, professor of New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
I. Howard Marshall, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Exegesis at the University of Aberdeen
F. Scott Spencer, Professor of New Testament at Baptist Theological Seminary
Paul W. Walaskay, Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary
Kenneth O. Gangel, Professor of Christian Education Dallas Theological Seminary
Mark J. Cartledge, Professor of Practical Theology at Regent University
Craig Keener, professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary
Gerhard Hasel, Professor of Biblical Theology at Andrews University
F F Bruce, Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester
Mal Couch, Professor of Theology & Languages Tyndale Theological Seminary
Robert Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The Master's Seminary
Max Turner, Professor of New Testament at the London School of Theology
Warren W. Wiersbe, Professor of Preaching at Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
D A Carson, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity
Wayne Grudem, Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary
Gotthard Victor Lechler, professor of historical theology at the University of Leipzig
E. J. Schnabel, Professor of New Testament at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Derek Thomas, Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary
H A Ironside, theologian and author of over 55 commentaries and books
John Stott, theologian and author of over 38 commentaries and books

 

[swordsman1]

Have you read about the ministry of Kathryn Khulman? She never preached healing, but preached the gospel in order to get people saved, yet there are testimonies, attested by medical experts in each case, of people being instantly cured of terminal cancers, heart conditions, and other incurable conditions. Someone whose grandson had been lame and had got up out of his wheelchair and walked, after not being able to walk since an infant, thanked Kathryn, and she replied, "Don't thank me. I had nothing to do with it." Such was the humility of the woman.

Now, how do you explain those healings. What would you say to that 12 year old boy who had never been able to walk, getting out of his wheelchair and walking perfectly, just by being in that meeting where Kathryn Khulman preached the gospel? Are you going to tell him that his healing is genuine or false?

My question is genuine, because Kathryn Khulman's ministry was unique in people being spontaneously healed in her meetings, and no other evangelist has ever had those events happen (no matter how hard they have tried!) You can see that this is quite different from someone laying hands on a sick person and saying, "You are healed" while the symptoms are still present. In Kathryn's meetings, people came up on to the stage to testify about healing that had already taken place without her previous knowledge of them.

(I understand that this is a bit off topic, but interesting.)

The gift of healing was the instantaneous and complete healing of a disability simply by the command or touch of a gifted individual, such as the disciples demonstrated in the New Testament. They didn't have to pray for healing. They could heal people instantly because they had been given that supernatural ability.

There is still healing today but it is the result of prayer (James 5:14-16), not the touch of someone with the gift of healing. Praying for healing is not the gift of healing. If you have to pray for healing it proves you do not have the gift of healing.

Did Kathryn Kulman claim to have the gift of healing? Did she heal people just at her command or touch? Were they healing genuine miracles? I'd be interested in seeing the statements by the medical experts. Can you post a link to them. Or that more hearsay?

Even if they were genuine, did other people not pray for those people who were ill? If they did then the healing may have been the result of those prayers, rather than KK having the gift of healing.

Even though God can heal today 90% of healings today are bogus. They are either fakes, such as the common leg-lengthening trick, or not miracles at all. Supposed healings that take days or months to occur are not a miracles. Nor are slight improvements in a persons condition that can be accounted for by the natural healing process. Nor are improvements brought about by psychosomatic effects.