Speaking in tongues

Oscarr said:

The fundamental difference between us is, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that we believe that the gifts are available to us today, and he doesn't.

Click to expand...

Not quite right. Cessationists believe that a small number of gifts are no longer given to individuals today (ie the gifts of apostleship, tongues, prophecy, healing & miracles). NB. God can still heal and perform miracles in response to prayer, but that is not the gift of healing.

Presumably you also believe that Apostles of Christ are no longer around today? So doesn't that make you a cessationist too to some degree?

Apo

swordsman1 said:

Not quite right. Cessationists believe that a small number of gifts are no longer given to individuals today (ie the gifts of apostleship, tongues, prophecy, healing & miracles). NB. God can still heal and perform miracles in response to prayer, but that is not the gift of healing.

Presumably you also believe that Apostles of Christ are no longer around today? So doesn't that make you a cessationist too to some degree?

Click to expand...

Apostles are Missionaries.

1stcenturylady said:

Apostles are Missionaries.

Click to expand...

Really? Every time I see the word 'apostle' used in the NT it is referring to the Twelve/Paul (and debatably Barnabas and one or two others), not anyone else. Are they not the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20)? Are they not the recipients of the most important spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:28)?

Are missionaries eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22,1 Cor 9:1) and personally commission by him? Do missionaries exhibit the signs of an apostle by signs and wonders and miracles (2 Cor 12:12)? I've never heard of missionaries being called apostles - we call them missionaries.

1stcenturylady... I understand you wrote a book on tongues... I would love to read it.

swordsman1 said:

It doesn't look like a foreign language, so it's not NT tongues.
It doesn't have simple strings of syllables typical of modern glossolalia.
It doesn't even look pronounceable, so its probably not anything spoken at all.
A coded sentence perhaps?
It's obviously a trick question, so go on then spill the beans.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. I didn't want to actually trick you. I was just interested in your response as part of our fair debate on the topic.

If this was spoken quickly by a New Zealander and written as it was spoken it would look like this. I will give the "interpretation:.
"Ihidbakinegs fbrekki itkortatihate stdifharf pisdsex n'flinch hdfushnchups."

"I had bacon and eggs for breakfast (brekkie) at a quarter to eight instead of half past six and for lunch had fish and chips."

I made the point because something that might seem unintelligible could very end up being an understandable language.

In actual fact when people speak conversational language it is often linguistically incorrect. There can be words missed out and other words contracted. A New Zealander would say "Gidday, howa yuh! I'm okay. Had bakn'eggs f'brekkie at korta-ate and had shark'n'tata f'lunch." As you can see that would be my previous statement spoken with a Kiwi accent. Say that to someone in the Southern States of the USA they wouldn't know what the heck I was talking about!

In the interests of fair debate, and I know that even though you will not agree with me, you will appreciate this:

When I pray in tongues, I believe that I am speaking an articulate language and not a set of repetititve syllables. So here is a statement that I would say if I spoke in tongues:

"Remasundu katapa singundo ramadika kibasa nabadatu quisaku."

So you can see that they are not repetitive syllables and the words look similar to my understandable language quote. So, we would have no way of knowing or determining whether this is an understandable language or not. But because I said those words in a public context, I am obligated to give the intepretation. Note that it does not have to be a direct translation; that it why it is called an interpretation. There are reasons for this, and I can start a new thread discussing the interpretation of tongues for those interested.
Here is my interpretation:

"Jesus is high above all. He is the only Saviour in whom you might find forgiveness and eternal life."

It is nothing dramatic, but then genuine tongues interpretations aren't. If an interpretation is dramatic and predictive then I would doubt it. The whole point of tongues and interpretation is to point people to Jesus.

I guess this might open up a debate can of worms, but let's enjoy it and have fun!

swordsman1 said:

Really? Every time I see the word 'apostle' used in the NT it is referring to the Twelve/Paul (and debatably Barnabas and one or two others), not anyone else. Are they not the foundation of the Church (Eph 2:20)? Are they not the recipients of the most important spiritual gift (1 Cor 12:28)?

Are missionaries eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:22,1 Cor 9:1) and personally commission by him? Do missionaries exhibit the signs of an apostle by signs and wonders and miracles (2 Cor 12:12)? I've never heard of missionaries being called apostles - we call them missionaries.

Click to expand...

Acts 1:13 lists eleven.
Acts 1:13 adds Matthaias, to take the place of Judas, who fell.
Galatians 1:19 adds James, the half brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church.
Acts 14:14 adds Paul and Barnabas
1 Corinthians 6:4-9 infers Apollos is included in "us, the apostles"
1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 1 Thessalonians 2:6 --Timothy and Silvanus
Philippians 2:25 adds Epaphroditus (Not in the KJV, but in the original Greek)
2 Corinthians 8:23 Two unnamed brethren; again, the Greek calls them apostles, the KJV only says messengers.
Romans 16:7 calls Andronicus and Junia "of note among the Apostles"--which honestly infers they were notable apostles.

How many is that? I counted 23.

Oscarr said:

If this was spoken quickly by a New Zealander and written as it was spoken it would look like this. I will give the "interpretation:.
"Ihidbakinegs fbrekki itkortatihate stdifharf pisdsex n'flinch hdfushnchups."

"I had bacon and eggs for breakfast (brekkie) at a quarter to eight instead of half past six and for lunch had fish and chips."

I made the point because something that might seem unintelligible could very end up being an understandable language.

Thanks for given a response. I didn't want to actually trick you. I was just interested in your response as part of our fair debate on the topic.

Click to expand...

Whew! I'm thankful that even though God has graced me with diverse kinds of tongues (I flip from one to another while interceding for various people and situations) I am thankful He has never put such a strange dialect upon my tongue. That was hard to pronounce!

Although, as I simply observe as tongues flow from my mouth, I am amazed my mouth can wrap around some of those sounds!

PollyJetix said:

1stcenturylady... I understand you wrote a book on tongues... I would love to read it.

Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. It's called The Hidden Mystery Behind Tongues, and you can get it on Amazon.com

swordsman1 said:

Not quite right. Cessationists believe that a small number of gifts are no longer given to individuals today (ie the gifts of apostleship, tongues, prophecy, healing & miracles). NB. God can still heal and perform miracles in response to prayer, but that is not the gift of healing.

Presumably you also believe that Apostles of Christ are no longer around today? So doesn't that make you a cessationist too to some degree?

Click to expand...

Oh, well. Although I don't believe in Apostolic Succession, and do believe that the 12 Apostles and Paul were specially chosen to spearhead the Early Church, I note that there were other apostles such as Barnabas and Silas. They were sent of God also as pioneers for the faith. Although the role of apostleship disappeared from the Church, and maybe that type of pioneer was no longer needed, in the same way that when a country requiring missionaries to plant churches in it, no longer require them when the indigenous people are able to maintain their churches. So do we need apostles today? I'm not sure. Some believe that apostleship is one of the five-fold ministries of the Church, and there are people going around calling themselves apostles. But are they doing pioneering work in places where there are no Christian churches at all, because that was what the First Century Apostles and apostles did. While I believe that Paul intended for apostles to be part of the five-fold ministry of the church, the jury is still out for me about the existence and role of modern day apostles.

Also, the apostleship and prophet function was common in the Early Church because it was one integrated body. But these days which the Church is so divided into denominations, it is difficult to have an apostleship or prophetic function because although one denomination may accept the role, others may not, and so the whole-Church role and authority of the apostle and prophet may not work, and so it would be difficult to establish such roles.

One Pentecostal denomination in New Zealand had 12 guys at their top leadership. They called themselves apostles. I don't think they were real apostles. I think they performed the role of elders. One person gave a correcting statement to the senior leader and he said to the person, "You can't talk to me like that. I am an apostle!" I thought that he was the senior leader and acted as bishop of his denomination rather than a modern apostle. I have met some international interdenominational preachers who have been labelled as apostles, although they didn't put that label on themselves. I didn't think they were actually apostles either. I think they were a cross between evangelist and teacher.

PollyJetix said:

1stcenturylady... I understand you wrote a book on tongues... I would love to read it.

Click to expand...

I bought it and it is the best book I have ever read about tongues. You will love it!

PollyJetix said:

Whew! I'm thankful that even though God has graced me with diverse kinds of tongues (I flip from one to another while interceding for various people and situations) I am thankful He has never put such a strange dialect upon my tongue. That was hard to pronounce!

Although, as I simply observe as tongues flow from my mouth, I am amazed my mouth can wrap around some of those sounds!

Click to expand...

That's quite normal. You want to try saying your words one at a time and then typing them out. This is not devaluing the gift of tongues. Don't do it on the forum though because you will have to give the interpretation like I had to.

You might be pleasantly surprised at the actual words that you are speaking. You have to speak slowly to distinguish the actual words. I speak at a normal conversational speed and use words to express what I want to say to God. It is the inspiration that flows. I don't babble. I speak definite words and I find this expresses something that blesses me while I speak. Some speak in syllables like "Bababashabashabakabasabanaba" etc. This is at best baby tongues and it is not surprising that hearers see it as gibberish, but when real words are used, then it becomes a real language and not just a babble of syllables. When people are taught properly about tongues, then they start speaking real words in the language they have never learned.

1stcenturylady said:

Yes, thanks. It's called The Hidden Mystery Behind Tongues, and you can get it on Amazon.com

Click to expand...

I heard a news report that the Bermuda Triangle got tired of the warmer weather so it moved to Alaska. Santa Claus has now disappeared....

Sorry. Can't help it!

Oscarr said:

Thanks for your response. I didn't want to actually trick you. I was just interested in your response as part of our fair debate on the topic.

If this was spoken quickly by a New Zealander and written as it was spoken it would look like this. I will give the "interpretation:.
"Ihidbakinegs fbrekki itkortatihate stdifharf pisdsex n'flinch hdfushnchups."

"I had bacon and eggs for breakfast (brekkie) at a quarter to eight instead of half past six and for lunch had fish and chips."

I made the point because something that might seem unintelligible could very end up being an understandable language.

In actual fact when people speak conversational language it is often linguistically incorrect. There can be words missed out and other words contracted. A New Zealander would say "Gidday, howa yuh! I'm okay. Had bakn'eggs f'brekkie at korta-ate and had shark'n'tata f'lunch." As you can see that would be my previous statement spoken with a Kiwi accent. Say that to someone in the Southern States of the USA they wouldn't know what the heck I was talking about!

Click to expand...

It was rather a trick question, because if it was spoken phonetically as you wrote it, with pauses where you separated the words and no pauses where you combined the words etc, it wouldn't sound anything like "I had bacon and eggs for brekkie at a quarter to eight instead of half past six and for lunch had fish and chips." even if spoken with a strong New Zealand accent. If I had heard it myself then I am sure I would understand it, and certainly a linguist knowledgeable in accents would.

Oscarr said:

When I pray in tongues, I believe that I am speaking an articulate language and not a set of repetititve syllables. So here is a statement that I would say if I spoke in tongues:

"Remasundu katapa singundo ramadika kibasa nabadatu quisaku."

So you can see that they are not repetitive syllables and the words look similar to my understandable language quote. So, we would have no way of knowing or determining whether this is an understandable language or not. But because I said those words in a public context, I am obligated to give the intepretation. Note that it does not have to be a direct translation; that it why it is called an interpretation. There are reasons for this, and I can start a new thread discussing the interpretation of tongues for those interested.
Here is my interpretation:

"Jesus is high above all. He is the only Saviour in whom you might find forgiveness and eternal life."

It is nothing dramatic, but then genuine tongues interpretations aren't. If an interpretation is dramatic and predictive then I would doubt it. The whole point of tongues and interpretation is to point people to Jesus.

I guess this might open up a debate can of worms, but let's enjoy it and have fun!

Click to expand...

If what you spoke was a language then each word would have a meaning, and when you repeated that word it would have the same meaning. Otherwise it is by definition not a language. That you have provided the interpretation makes it all the easier to analyse. Presumably "Remasundu" is Jesus, so every time you repeated that word it would also be Jesus. And so on for the other words. Eventually a full dictionary of the language could be compiled.

PollyJetix said:

Acts 1:13 lists eleven.
Acts 1:13 adds Matthaias, to take the place of Judas, who fell.
Galatians 1:19 adds James, the half brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem church.
Acts 14:14 adds Paul and Barnabas
1 Corinthians 6:4-9 infers Apollos is included in "us, the apostles"
1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 1 Thessalonians 2:6 --Timothy and Silvanus
Philippians 2:25 adds Epaphroditus (Not in the KJV, but in the original Greek)
2 Corinthians 8:23 Two unnamed brethren; again, the Greek calls them apostles, the KJV only says messengers.
Romans 16:7 calls Andronicus and Junia "of note among the Apostles"--which honestly infers they were notable apostles.

How many is that? I counted 23.

Click to expand...

The is no doubt that Paul and the Twelve were apostles. They are repeatedly called apostles in scripture.

Barnabas was only called an apostle once using a pronouncement that included Paul, "the apostles Barnabas and Paul". Gal 1:19 doesn't say that James was Apostle, but it could certainly be inferred that he was. I wouldn't labor the point with these two.

Apollos was unlikely to be an apostle as he made doctrinal mistakes early in his ministry and had to be taught by Priscilla and Aquila.

Timothy & Silas was never called or regarded as apostles. Paul always regarded Timothy as an underling, never an equal. Paul clearly excludes Timothy from being an apostle in 2 Cor 1:1 and Col 1:1. Silas was chosen to replace Mark who was only a 'helper' in the missionary team.

In the vast majority of bible translation Epaphroditus is called a 'messenger' in Phil 2:25, not an apostle. Same for 2 Cor 8:23.

Andronicus and Junia were "of note among the Apostles" ie they were well regarded by the Twelve.

So there were 13 apostles for sure, 15 at most I'd say.

Oscarr said:

Although the role of apostleship disappeared from the Church,

Click to expand...

So you are a fellow cessationist! I knew it!

If one gift has disappeared then why not 2 or 3 others whose main foundational purpose has also disappeared?

As you say, those today who like to call themselves apostles such as Peter Wagner are nothing of the sort, and are just being arrogantly presumptuous in order to give themselves an air of authority to be able to lord it over others.

Nobody today meets the qualifications of being an apostle of Christ. ie eyewitnesses in the flesh of the risen Lord Jesus and appointed by him, nor have the signs of an apostle by performing multiple signs and wonders and miracles. Nor can there ever be apostles as they were the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). You only build a foundation once.

Oscarr said:

I heard a news report that the Bermuda Triangle got tired of the warmer weather so it moved to Alaska. Santa Claus has now disappeared....

Sorry. Can't help it!

Click to expand...

You're priceless!!!!!

swordsman1 said:

It was rather a trick question, because if it was spoken phonetically as you wrote it, with pauses where you separated the words and no pauses where you combined the words etc, it wouldn't sound anything like "I had bacon and eggs for brekkie at a quarter to eight instead of half past six and for lunch had fish and chips." even if spoken with a strong New Zealand accent. If I had heard it myself then I am sure I would understand it, and certainly a linguist knowledgeable in accents would.



If what you spoke was a language then each word would have a meaning, and when you repeated that word it would have the same meaning. Otherwise it is by definition not a language. That you have provided the interpretation makes it all the easier to analyse. Presumably "Remasundu" is Jesus, so every time you repeated that word it would also be Jesus. And so on for the other words. Eventually a full dictionary of the language could be compiled.

Click to expand...

As I said before, the office of apostle is today called a missionary. You said that is not in the Bible, so where is the word "missionary." It is the same mission: one sent out to preach the gospel to the whole world. You have no idea of the miracles being seen in Africa. Eyes appear where there was only a hollow hole, limbs grow back; it's glorious.

Mark 16:15-16
And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."

swordsman1 said:

So you are a fellow cessationist! I knew it!

If one gift has disappeared then why not 2 or 3 others whose main foundational purpose has also disappeared?

As you say, those today who like to call themselves apostles such as Peter Wagner are nothing of the sort, and are just being arrogantly presumptuous in order to give themselves an air of authority to be able to lord it over others.

Nobody today meets the qualifications of being an apostle of Christ. ie eyewitnesses in the flesh of the risen Lord Jesus and appointed by him, nor have the signs of an apostle by performing multiple signs and wonders and miracles. Nor can there ever be apostles as they were the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20). You only build a foundation once.

Click to expand...

Hahahaha! There's something we agree about! I knew we would not agree about tongues and how it is used today. I wasn't out to belittle you about it. I just wanted to know what your response would be. It wasn't to trick you into believing in tongues. Even though we disagree about what tools are best used to strengthen the Church, we do agree in the essential foundations of the gospel, that Jesus gave Himself for us on the Cross.

I don't think the signs and wonders are the principal qualifications of an apostle. It seems that the Early Church role was involved in going into totally pagan regions, representing one Christian Church, to spread the gospel.

Because the church is now split up into so many denominations, even if a person went into a totally pagan region, he would merely be a missionary for that denomination. That is why it would be fairly impossible to fulfill the role of apostle today, given that the role is still there to be fulfilled, until all the denominations that have the genuine gospel become totally united; that is: not only in unity of the gospel and purpose, but actual union so that the Christian Church becomes only one Church, without the demominations.

This because the role of apostle has to represent the whole Christian Church and be recognised as such. There are no "apostles" today who fit that criteria, and so they really cannot assume that role.

Barnabus, Silas, Apollos, Epaphradidus, and others named in the New Testament as apostles besides the Apostles, represented the one Christian church and were universally recognised as such.

When the Roman Catholic Church was the one Christian church in the known world, it would have been possible to have its apostles, but we don't have any records (that I know of) that the RCC used that identification for their pioneer missionaries. May be the Jesuit Order may have been close to it while the RCC was the only Christian Church.

1stcenturylady said:

You're priceless!!!!!

Click to expand...

I saw a good one on Facebook yesterday:
Paddy the Irishman told Shamus that he is going to be circumcised tomorrow and asked him whether it was going to hurt. Shamus replied, "I got it done when I was a few days old, and it took me a year before I could walk!"

Oscarr said:

I saw a good one on Facebook yesterday:
Paddy the Irishman told Shamus that he is going to be circumcised tomorrow and asked him whether it was going to hurt. Paddy replied, "I got it done when I was a few days old, and it took me a year before I could walk!"

Click to expand...

I laughed so hard, I'm choking!