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.
So, you know the difference between someone using a tongue to worship (speaking to God) and a prophetic tongue (addressing the congregation). Right? (both are "public" tongues)…
Yes I have spoken in tongues, not in church though, only in private.
Here is my article:Could you expound on 1 Corinthians 14:1-5, 13-15, 27-28, 39 ?
Oh brother Oscarr, I was 'liking' and 'agreeing' til now. Of course there is a benefit. If there is none then why would scripture even advocate "addressing one another is Psalms, hymms AND SPIRITUAL SONGS"?which according to 1Cor is SINGING I"N TONGUES??? I admit, that singing in a language no man understands, but God, would still obviously put a smile on God's face, but why would this scripture tell us to "address one another" with such a practice, in your opinion?That might make sense to some, but there is nothing in the Act 2 passage that connects the speaking in tongues to the preaching of the gospel. The tongues speakers were praising God, but Peter preached the gospel in his own native language and not tongues. Read it for yourself. We need to be careful not to add our own opinions to what the Word of God actually says.
You are correct that it makes no sense to speak out in tongues in a church service, unless it is interpreted so that all may be edified.
But true understanding is going to require eyes that truly see too. Ours may be old, but they're still "gifted"I choose to ignore the linguistic research, because I don't believe it. I believe what the Bible says about tongues.
the central focus to all things we do is giving glory to God. There are a few examples in Acts with speaking in tongues but only the first explicitly has others hearing tongues in their own language... but what did they hear? "declaring the wonders of God". After this event Peter preached to them (in a common language) and this is when they heard the gospel and responded to it. Tongues doesn't actually have biblical examples for speaking the explicit gospel but rather it is always praising and giving glory to God, the gospel seems to always be spoken in the languages already understood by the speaker. It does seem to play a key role in evangelism, as we see in Acts, but I think we misidentify tongues when we say it is to preach the gospel, the only examples shows people praising God in tongues not preaching the gospel in tongues.Speaking in tongues originally had the purpose of communicating the gospel to people who spoke in different languages, did it not? What is the purpose now?
On the description page at Amazon <staff edited out the Amazon link> there is a book called the Doctrine And Teaching Of Speaking With Tongues, that suggest we are all wrong when it comes to speaking in tongues: that tongues is neither a language to aid the first disciple in the spreading of the gospel nor is it gibberish! Because they say that tongues is neither a language nor gibberish they draw the sword against themselves on both sides of the issue.
Now I can see how tongues can be proven not to be an unknown gibberish prayer language, but to prove that tongues is not a real language is another thing; which is close to impossible, I suppose, for those who believe tongues to be a language - only because they are so sure it is a language!
However if indeed it can be proven that neither of these teachings are true and that we are all wrong this would be a great turning point in the Christian world; and much need, I suppose, to end our endless debates; but especially for the weaker brethren and those searching for this truth that they should no longer be tossed to and fro from both sides of the issue.
Has anyone heard of this book that is supposed to show all that we are wrong or read of the great claims it makes on the description page on Amazon! Or is it possible that we are all wrong and have overlooked that one key element! And what about our teachers, what are they going to do! Would those teaching and defending their teaching for ten, twenty or even forty years put away their beliefs for the sake of truth, if indeed it turns out we are all wrong! Or is the Christian world even ready for this new teaching - if it can be called a new!
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
The miracle was in the hearing, not the speaking. Tongues has always been a prayer language of the spirit speaking to the Holy Spirit, and is always gibberish to our minds, which is a part of our souls.
Also, if one has never spoken in tongues on a regular basis, he or she can never know whether it is spiritually uplifting or not. One cannot make definite assertions without commensurate experience.
What I am saying is Paul wished that they all spoke in Tongues, but the greater wish was that they all prophesied.
This would have been a senseless wish if Tongues was a known language because a known language is how prophesy is spoken.
Because the things of God are spiritually discerned, then non-Christian researchers will always come to different conclusions but not any real answers about how something can be real and genuine. The natural man cannot discern or understand the ways of God no matter how hard he tries or how much research he does.
I choose to ignore the linguistic research, because I don't believe it. I believe what the Bible says about tongues.
Have you ever heard a conversation in Hindi, Chinese, Arabic, or Vietnamese? These languages sound like absolute gibberish to me, but those speakers understand each other. So, if I pray in a language that I believe, on the basis of 1 Corinthians 14, is a language understandable to God, even though it may sound like gibberish to me, then who is there to doubt that what I am praying is genuine language?
i know that we have had many debates on this issue and we could both get sucked into the vortex if we decided to go through the quicksand all over again.I am sure when you discover the technique it is 'spiritually uplifting' especially when you are told that what you a speaking is the genuine New Testament gift and having it elevates you to being a superior Christian who is 'baptized in the Spirit' (despite scripture saying otherwise). The peer pressure in charismatic and pentecostal churches is enormous. The question is whether it is the genuine gift or whether you have discovered the well-researched linguist phenomenon of 'free vocalization' where the vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of syllables from a persons vocabulary of phonemes. The professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' tell us it has no linguistic structure and is therefore the latter. And this phenomenon is not unique to Christianity.
The only word that I disagree with in your correctly worded post is the word "translated". Paul doesn't use the word "translate". He uses "interprets". There is a difference. The tongue spoken out may not require a direct translation because it may be an intercession to God to allow those who prophesy to stir up their gift and allow the word of prophecy to come forth in the meeting. But that is just an unproven theory of mine, when in fact, we don't really know how it actually works.Prophecy was a message from God spoken to others in their common language. Tongues was praise to God miraculously spoken in a foreign language you haven't learned. There is only one description of the gift in scripture (Acts 2). In Corinth it was spoken in a church where no one in the congregation understood the language, and Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing so. Paul said if someone wanted to practice their gift in church it must be translated so that the whole congregation can benefit.
I don't actually have any argument with that. But tongues is a gift of the Spirit and the purpose is to enhance a person's prayer life and so it is intended for private use, unless in conjunction with an interpreter. If a person uses tongues in order for it to be examined by a professional linguist then in my opinion it is a misuse of the gift and a degrading of the sacredness of it; therefore it would not be genuine and could very well end up being gibberish with no meaning - because the spoken tongues is not directed to God as it should be.But it wouldn't be gibberish to a professional linguist who would quickly be able to identify a regularly spoken utterance as being a language no matter how obscure it is.
A linguist trying to discover a structure in tongues would be like a surgeon dissecting a human body to try and find the spirit of the person. He could take it apart and find that there is nothing there. As I said, a demonstration of tongues for examination would not be genuine tongues and be like the counsellor's advice to Absolom - pointless and foolish babble.A professional linguist does not need to be spiritually discerned to be able to determine whether a language is genuine or not. It simply requires them to be professionally trained to identify the linguistic structures present in any language.
Thank you for addressing this. I agree with what you are saying here.Whose voice did the crowd hear speaking in their own languages? Was it a voice inside their heads, or was it the disciples speaking their languages? Scripture tells us plainly:
Acts 2:6 "the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language"
It was the disciples who were speaking in the languages of the crowd. There is no mention in of any kind of 'miracle of hearing' taking place in Acts 2. If there was this great miracle of automatic translation in the ears of the hearers Luke would have told us, not remain silent on such an important fact. Verse 4 says the Holy Spirit fell on the disciples giving them the miraculous ability of speaking other languages they hadn't learnt - "they began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them" - before any of the foreigners heard them. There is no mention of the Spirit falling on anyone else. Notice the plural tongues in that verse. The disciples spoke in multiple languages, not a single 'heavenly' language
We take the gift on faith. Jesus said it is given to those who ask. Questioning what God has given us, or others, is skating on the thin ice of possible blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (attributing the work of God to something else, especially the enemy)I am sure when you discover the technique it is 'spiritually uplifting' especially when you are told that what you a speaking is the genuine New Testament gift and having it elevates you to being a superior Christian who is 'baptized in the Spirit' (despite scripture saying otherwise). The peer pressure in charismatic and pentecostal churches is enormous. The question is whether it is the genuine gift or whether you have discovered the well-researched linguist phenomenon of 'free vocalization' where the vocal organs go into autopilot and produce strings of syllables from a persons vocabulary of phonemes. The professional linguists who have studied today's 'tongues' tell us it has no linguistic structure and is therefore the latter. And this phenomenon is not unique to Christianity.
I don't think the Corinthians were so much being rebuked as instructed. I mean concerning messages in tongues without interpretation. The Apostle indicated that a message in tongues was of equal value when accompanied by interpretation. How so?Prophecy was a message from God spoken to others in their common language. Tongues was praise to God miraculously spoken in a foreign language you haven't learned. There is only one description of the gift in scripture (Acts 2). In Corinth it was spoken in a church where no one in the congregation understood the language, and Paul rebuked the Corinthians for doing so. Paul said if someone wanted to practice their gift in church it must be translated so that the whole congregation can benefit.
As I recall, the linguistic researcher concluded that tongues was a genuine manifestation. But those who want to discredit tongues use the findings to discredit tongues. Claiming that it is a natural phenomenon. As I recall, the researcher said tongues happened in an altered mental state. How the speaker got there was an individual thing. The nay-sayers use this possibility to throw cold water at the whole idea. It fits Cessationist apologetics.I choose to ignore the linguistic research, because I don't believe it. I believe what the Bible says about tongues.
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?