Speaking in tongues?

[tango]

Where does scripture call demons "presences"? (Hint: it doesn't.).


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

We can argue over whether to refer to demons as "presences" or not although what we call something is really secondary to what we do about its - er - presence.

The idea of just sensing something and immediately casting it out is unhelpful, not least because of what Jesus said in Matt 12:43-45.

 

[Hammster]

We can argue over whether to refer to demons as "presences" or not although what we call something is really secondary to what we do about its - er - presence.

The idea of just sensing something and immediately casting it out is unhelpful, not least because of what Jesus said in Matt 12:43-45.

That's more in line with unbelievers, anyway. A believer doesn't need demons (or presences, whatever that is) cast out. Demons cannot possess believers. The whole notion is just spiritual mumbo jumbo that folks make up to feel more spiritual.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[tango]

That's more in line with unbelievers, anyway. A believer doesn't need demons (or presences, whatever that is) cast out. Demons cannot possess believers. The whole notion is just spiritual mumbo jumbo that folks make up to feel more spiritual.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Sure, I'd assumed he was talking about unbelievers, in which case it's important not to just go round casting out demons because they will only return later.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yeh.? I clikd a link to some tanzanian speaker..didnt understand a word of it.sounded like gibberish.so it mudt be gibberish...umm nope.

When you can produce some examples of speaking in tongues in a charismatic meeting that are not examples of gibberish you'll have a better case.

 

[tango]

When you can produce some examples of speaking in tongues in a charismatic meeting that are not examples of gibberish you'll have a better case.

Here's the thing, when I'm in church I'm usually not in a mind to grab my phone and start videoing it.

That's just one of the many things that bothers me with, for example, the gold dust that's allegedly a cloud of the glory of God that shows up in places like Bethel. When God shows up we can compare and contrast the response:

Isaiah: Woe is me for I am undone (Is 6:5)

Ezekiel: I fell on my face (Eze 1:28)

John: I fell at his feet as dead (Rev 1:17)

Bethel: Woot! Where's my iPhone?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Here's the thing, when I'm in church I'm usually not in a mind to grab my phone and start videoing it.

That's just one of the many things that bothers me with, for example, the gold dust that's allegedly a cloud of the glory of God that shows up in places like Bethel. When God shows up we can compare and contrast the response:

Isaiah: Woe is me for I am undone (Is 6:5)

Ezekiel: I fell on my face (Eze 1:28)

John: I fell at his feet as dead (Rev 1:17)

Bethel: Woot! Where's my iPhone?

Presumably the biblical examples are genuine while the 'bethel' example is not. In fact the evidence appears to be that the current examples of 'tongues' in charismatic meetings are not genuine either and that's why they turn out to be gibberish whenever they are recorded or transcribed.

God is able to work miracles today and the evidence is that he does in some cases but the idea that healing is in the atonement and tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism in/with/by/of the Holy Spirit is simply born of error and propagated in error and it does not matter how sincere the advocates of error may be they are nonetheless propagating error.

 

[Alithis]

When you can produce some examples of speaking in tongues in a charismatic meeting that are not examples of gibberish you'll have a better case.

You missed a rather obvious point. Anytime a person speaks any tongue we dont understand..it sounds like giberrish to us.
It does not mean it is.
your the one calling tongues gibberish.based on the fact you dont understand what is being said.But when carnal reason is the basis of your judgment .your going to get it wrong .because the carnal mind cannot comprehend spiritual things.it is scripture and it is the realm of faith.
Just because you look on the outer appearance and judge it as " not tongues" having never known the gift or its operation through you.does not mean you are correct.. it only means you personally do not believe it is tongues.

any which way we turn it.. its unbelief.

 

[tango]

Presumably the biblical examples are genuine while the 'bethel' example is not. In fact the evidence appears to be that the current examples of 'tongues' in charismatic meetings are not genuine either and that's why they turn out to be gibberish whenever they are recorded or transcribed.

Those who are pro-Bethel would insist that the cloud of gold dust is a genuine manifestation of God. Those more prone to question tend to ask awkward questions, like whether it has ever been analysed and why it only seems to happen in association with churches that have a flawed Christology.

I can't say I've done detailed research on tongues but have certainly come across the shundai kushanda type of "speaking in tongues" as well as other manifestations that I believe were genuine.

God is able to work miracles today and the evidence is that he does in some cases but the idea that healing is in the atonement and tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism in/with/by/of the Holy Spirit is simply born of error and propagated in error and it does not matter how sincere the advocates of error may be they are nonetheless propagating error.

Sure, I don't have any problem believing that tongues are for today but to claim that they are the only acceptable evidence of the Holy Spirit being present is to make a rule out of an example. We can see what happened to the disciples at Pentecost but to say that is the only way God will ever work is to put God in a very man-sized box. Which is ironic, given the people who tend to promote such teachings are usually fairly quick to rail against others putting God in a box.

 

[tango]

You missed a rather obvious point. Anytime a person speaks any tongue we dont understand..it sounds like giberrish to us.
It does not mean it is.
your the one calling tongues gibberish.based on the fact you dont understand what is being said.But when carnal reason is the basis of your judgment .your going to get it wrong .because the carnal mind cannot comprehend spiritual things.it is scripture and it is the realm of faith.
Just because you look on the outer appearance and judge it as " not tongues" having never known the gift or its operation through you.does not mean you are correct.. it only means you personally do not believe it is tongues.

any which way we turn it.. its unbelief.

Unbelief isn't inherently a bad thing. We are called to "test all things" so to just believe everything we hear isn't faith, it's being gullible. It's true that the mind doesn't comprehend spiritual things but that doesn't mean we should just believe everything and criticise those who ask questions as lacking faith or suffering unbelief. Paul didn't criticise the Bereans for their lack of belief, he applauded them for searching the Scriptures to see "whether these things were so". No sense of blind faith, no sense of criticism for not believing without question, just praise for them for verifying before accepting it.

2Co 11:3-4 should be a warning to anyone who does little more than cry "unbelief" whenever anyone questions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You missed a rather obvious point. Anytime a person speaks any tongue we dont understand..it sounds like giberrish to us.
It does not mean it is.

Well you're claim is not correct. Let's be accurate about this. What I've contended is that every example that I have heard and every example that I have encountered in video and audio recordings is gibberish and not a language with structure, syntax, and vocabulary. And the examples on youtube, in my local Pentecostal assemblies, and probably in those near you do in fact turn out to be gibberish when checked. It is not as if there are credible verified examples of people speaking in tongues today that turn out upon close and careful examination to be Cantonese, Greek, Swahili, Italian, Afrikaans, or some other language that can be translated and whose message can be verified. And what is particularly telling about the whole Charismatic enterprise and its manufactured miracles and fake gifts is that when they are checked and shown to be gibberish or fake healing etcetera then the advocates claim that there are some bad apples in the barrel and that one 'ought not to throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Some of the most scholarly advocates say that tongues is an angelic language that does not conform to earthly linguistic norms; how convenient that is, it sounds like what a confidence trickster would say when his/her game is discovered to be a trick.

your the one calling tongues gibberish.based on the fact you dont understand what is being said.But when carnal reason is the basis of your judgment .your going to get it wrong .because the carnal mind cannot comprehend spiritual things.it is scripture and it is the realm of faith.
Just because you look on the outer appearance and judge it as " not tongues" having never known the gift or its operation through you.does not mean you are correct.. it only means you personally do not believe it is tongues.

any which way we turn it.. its unbelief.

The basis of my judgement is godly discernment. The holy scriptures warn against lying wonders and the holy scriptures tell the faithful that 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. Well, the fruits of many of the prominent televangelists are what exactly? Wealth, mansions, Lear jets, excess, moral failures, and a host of other negative things.

And what do I personally believe in? it doesn't matter very much but I do believe in miracles and I do think that people receive visions and messages from God today yet those who receive these things are not wealthy televangelists who worry more about the size of the donations they receive than about the grace given to the humble and needy.

 

[Alithis]

Well you're claim is not correct. Let's be accurate about this. What I've contended is that every example that I have heard and every example that I have encountered in video and audio recordings is gibberish and not a language with structure, syntax, and vocabulary. And the examples on youtube, in my local Pentecostal assemblies, and probably in those near you do in fact turn out to be gibberish when checked. It is not as if there are credible verified examples of people speaking in tongues today that turn out upon close and careful examination to be Cantonese, Greek, Swahili, Italian, Afrikaans, or some other language that can be translated and whose message can be verified. And what is particularly telling about the whole Charismatic enterprise and its manufactured miracles and fake gifts is that when they are checked and shown to be gibberish or fake healing etcetera then the advocates claim that there are some bad apples in the barrel and that one 'ought not to throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Some of the most scholarly advocates say that tongues is an angelic language that does not conform to earthly linguistic norms; how convenient that is, it sounds like what a confidence trickster would say when his/her game is discovered to be a trick.

The basis of my judgement is godly discernment. The holy scriptures warn against lying wonders and the holy scriptures tell the faithful that 'by their fruits shall ye know them'. Well, the fruits of many of the prominent televangelists are what exactly? Wealth, mansions, Lear jets, excess, moral failures, and a host of other negative things.

And what do I personally believe in? it doesn't matter very much but I do believe in miracles and I do think that people receive visions and messages from God today yet those who receive these things are not wealthy televangelists who worry more about the size of the donations they receive than about the grace given to the humble and needy.

again ..you have maintained judgment of that which is spiritual by the use of the carnal reasoning ... your getting it wrong and will always do so as long as you try to use mere human intellect . -and changing the topic to fruits is nothing more then changing the topic .

tongues are not a validation of anything .. it is a work of the holy Spirit manifesting through a person.not a qualification.

go read the account of the writing on the wall in the book of denial .. the number of words do not match the interpretation given to Daniel .
God is Spirit .. does a spirit have a tongue from which to form what man considers to be language ( that is not a thing you will comprehend this way )..

is God bound by the observations of men ? Gods words come forth as life they became flesh and blood .. and yet they cannot be syllables that do not match your rules of what language must be ?.
in the Spirit a sigh can speak an oracle and the Spirit intercedes with groans which can not be uttered (by mans tongue ) because the language of the Holy Spirit is GOD speaking .

will the clay say to the potter .."you must speak thus, according to my rules " ..?

 

[MoreCoffee]

again .. ..?

Since your reply didn't address any of the points raised in my post I wonder what purpose your reply is intended to serve?

 

[psalms 91]

Jesus said it plainly, if you cant understand earthly things then how can you ever understand spiritual

 

[tango]

again ..you have maintained judgment of that which is spiritual by the use of the carnal reasoning ... your getting it wrong and will always do so as long as you try to use mere human intellect . -and changing the topic to fruits is nothing more then changing the topic .

tongues are not a validation of anything .. it is a work of the holy Spirit manifesting through a person.not a qualification.

go read the account of the writing on the wall in the book of denial .. the number of words do not match the interpretation given to Daniel .
God is Spirit .. does a spirit have a tongue from which to form what man considers to be language ( that is not a thing you will comprehend this way )..

is God bound by the observations of men ? Gods words come forth as life they became flesh and blood .. and yet they cannot be syllables that do not match your rules of what language must be ?.
in the Spirit a sigh can speak an oracle and the Spirit intercedes with groans which can not be uttered (by mans tongue ) because the language of the Holy Spirit is GOD speaking .

will the clay say to the potter .."you must speak thus, according to my rules " ..?

... and again you give no indication of how you would propose to follow the Scriptural call to "test all things"

It's all well and good to talk of understanding in the spirit but this fails miserably when presented with a situation where one person considers a thing to be good and another person considers the same thing to be bad. It's either one or the other, it either is of God or it is not, so it doesn't work to fall back on pat answers like "maybe you're not ready for that yet".

Unless there's an objective standard to fall back on all we're ever going to have is subjective bickering. We might as well be a buyer and seller in the marketplace arguing endlessly over whether the bag of sugar really weighs a pound or not, with the customer insisting it's underweight and the seller insisting it's up to weight but neither of them agreeing to put it on a scale and settle the matter.

Hmmm... I wonder what objective standard we might use for something like this?

 

[GenesisGirl]

Jesus said it plainly, if you cant understand earthly things then how can you ever understand spiritual

Yet as I understand it from this conversation, this "language" is not one that is understood by any humans whether on an earthly or spiritual level.

 

[Hammster]

Jesus said it plainly, if you cant understand earthly things then how can you ever understand spiritual

I understand earthly things. And I understand spiritual things. I do not understand the gibberish that you are promoting.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[onlyme]

Yet as I understand it from this conversation, this "language" is not one that is understood by any humans whether on an earthly or spiritual level.

I look at it from the perspective of Pentecost in Acts when all heard the Gospel in their own language. This was before the Scriptures were complete.

 

[psalms 91]

I understand earthly things. And I understand spiritual things. I do not understand the gibberish that you are promoting.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

Actually I promote nothing, the Holy Spirit does and is backed up by the bible. If you choose not to believe so be it but dont disparage others belief that know

 

[Hammster]

Actually I promote nothing, the Holy Spirit does and is backed up by the bible. If you choose not to believe so be it but dont disparage others belief that know

It's not the Holy Spirit. If it was, you'd be supporting your view with scripture.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Alithis]

Since your reply didn't address any of the points raised in my post I wonder what purpose your reply is intended to serve?

your points are mere distractions . my purpose is my point which is ,.. you look on the outer appearance and make a final judgment in your heart . but god looks on the heart and knows all things .
your judgment of the matter can never be correct from that perspective .
simply because you do not understand a spiritual language does not mean it is not a language .saying it doesn't make it so .

you have listened and you have judged .. but you are wrong in your judgments .because you simply have no grounds upon which to base that judgment .

sure you can look at the fruits and judge whether a person is walking in both belief and obedience to God .
But you simply cannot listen to tongues and judge whether it be tongues or not .it is simply not honest to say that .
You will note that tongues are not "translated " as earthly language can be . they are "interpreted" by the same Holy Spirit because the carnal mind cannot do so .

if you wish to speak of testing spirits then make judgments of that which is spoken in the churches in your own language first -a tongue you do understand .teachings of the abominations of idols and queens of heaven and blatant lies against the direct unambiguous word of god .. judge your own house first before you point the finger at another and without any basis make such a bold claim against the things of the Holy Spirit saying .. "that is not tongues " when you simply do not and cannot know .