Speaking in tongues?

[MoreCoffee]

The reason that we keep bringing up the fakers is because there is really no actual proof that the tongues still exist today besides word of mouth, and we know how that isn't always legitimate no matter who the source is.

So, is there the gift of tongues still today? None that has been proven.

If somebody told me that a man (or a woman) visiting a monastery, where the monks spoke only Greek, heard a monk explain the gospel to him (or her) in English when all the other people there heard no such thing and knew that the monk in question could not speak any English I'd be more inclined to accept that story as a possible example of genuine speaking in tongues than the examples of 'tongues' I've heard in charismatic meetings. And I'd be more inclined to accept it because both Greek and English are real languages and the message was the gospel and if the explanation was instrumental in the man (or woman) professing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and starting to live a godly life I'd give it even more credence.

Messages in gibberish 'tongues' do not spread the gospel.

 

[psalms 91]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, I think this covers wanting proof in the physical of certain things does it not? Since we are talking spiritual and not physical?

 

[tango]

The reason that we keep bringing up the fakers is because there is really no actual proof that they tongues still exist today besides word of mouth, and we know how that isn't always legitimate no matter who the source is.

So, is there the gift of tongues still today? None that has been proven.

Even if you could conclusively demonstrate that not a single person living today speaks in tongues that doesn't mean the gift has ceased.

If you want to take something made clear in Scripture and claim it no longer applies you really need a Scriptural argument for the cessation rather than simply observing a lot of fakes and therefore concluding it doesn't happen.

Playing devil's advocate here, what proof is there that Jesus Christ still saves people today? There's lots of word of mouth, and we know how that isn't always legitimate no matter who the source is.

To be honest I think the biggest problem today is the way we see global ministries set up. We see someone put on a pedestal with many words written about their credentials and how great they are, and all the focus is on the man and the ministry rather than the God allegedly behind the ministry. Compare and contrast to the approach Paul took in Php 3, where he describes the human status he once enjoyed and then says he counted it all as a loss for Christ. Never mind all the things he could have stood upon, he was a servant of Christ and that was what mattered.

Of course when ministries grow past a certain point then pretty much by definition they cease to be local. They must talk of what happened Somewhere Else, and the temptation is surely always there to claim something bigger and better to make sure the next book sells well or the next rally is well attended. When a ministry is local and largely anonymous (i.e. the focus is on those who need it, not a grandstanding figurehead) there's no need to come up with grand stories of what happened Somewhere Else because the people around can see for themselves. They can see that the violent thug has changed overnight, they can see that the drug user has quit using drugs, they can see that the guy drifting with no hope has a new passion for life. And in all those cases they can ask about the "reason for the hope that is within" and get an answer that points to Jesus Christ. That seems like it would carry far more weight than seeing someone on stage whose life you have no chance to see, making grandiose claims that generally cannot be proven, when you see no tangible evidence for any of the claims he makes.

 

[tango]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, I think this covers wanting proof in the physical of certain things does it not? Since we are talking spiritual and not physical?

Blind faith helps nobody, least of all the person showing blind faith in something. We can hope for something but still test the promise we will receive it, no?

Faith certainly is related to things hoped for, things believed that can't necessarily be proven, but it has to be balanced or we end up with all sorts of silly premises based on this concept of faith.

Can you prove that Russell's Teapot does not exist? I doubt it very much, so how would you address the person who has faith that it does exist? We could say the same thing for anything from the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the fish I almost landed but got away (he was thiiiiiiiiis big!) Faith has to have a basis in something or it becomes gullibility.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, I think this covers wanting proof in the physical of certain things does it not? Since we are talking spiritual and not physical?

Hebrews 11:1 is about faith being evidence of things that we cannot see - God is a Spirit and no man has ever seen God but faith is reposed in God so we who are visible believe in God who is invisible - yet Christ came into the world to speak the message of God and bear witness to heavenly things which we cannot see in this life and we believed him. The passage explains the meaning of faith thus:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
​

As the passage says, faith is itself evidence for what cannot be seen and even though it is not proof sufficient to convince those who are sceptical it is nevertheless evidence for the unseen.

 

[psalms 91]

Blind faith helps nobody, least of all the person showing blind faith in something. We can hope for something but still test the promise we will receive it, no?

Faith certainly is related to things hoped for, things believed that can't necessarily be proven, but it has to be balanced or we end up with all sorts of silly premises based on this concept of faith.

Can you prove that Russell's Teapot does not exist? I doubt it very much, so how would you address the person who has faith that it does exist? We could say the same thing for anything from the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the fish I almost landed but got away (he was thiiiiiiiiis big!) Faith has to have a basis in something or it becomes gullibility.

Really, what was your proof that God exists? That your sins were forgiven? That Jesus was and is the Son of God? Prove any of those without faith. Faith is what we have and the Holy Spirit is our guide. If you use mans wisdom to prove things you will end up believing nothing and I really dont think God is pleased without faith, seems there is a verse to that effect.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Really, what was your proof that God exists? That your sins were forgiven? That Jesus was and is the Son of God? Prove any of those without faith. Faith is what we have and the Holy Spirit is our guide. If you use mans wisdom to prove things you will end up believing nothing and I really dont think God is pleased without faith, seems there is a verse to that effect.

The word of Christ is the evidence for one's forgiveness and for one's hope of heaven. It is not proof that an atheist will accept but for those who are of the household of faith is it sufficient. But those who are of the household of faith do not all accept gibberish as "tongues" and not all follow after teachers who speak gibberish and encourage others to do the same.

Do you believe what is said in this video clip is a message from God including the gibberish?

 

[popsthebuilder]

The reason that we keep bringing up the fakers is because there is really no actual proof that they tongues still exist today besides word of mouth, and we know how that isn't always legitimate no matter who the source is.

So, is there the gift of tongues still today? None that has been proven.

The Bible is full of double, and triple entendres. If that's not tongues or riddles I don't know what is.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[Hammster]

Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen, I think this covers wanting proof in the physical of certain things does it not? Since we are talking spiritual and not physical?

No, that doesn't cut it. I not only have faith in Christ Jesus, that faith is informed by scripture. You have no scripture. You just have experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Ruth]

First off, there's no such thing as a woman pastor. Secondly, did you actually hear her, or was story relayed to you?

Also, Hebrew is a known language. And if she was speaking it with no one there to interpret, she was doing so unbiblically.

Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

There are lots of women pastors now a days.

 

[Hammster]

There are lots of women pastors now a days.

Nope. Not a one.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[Lamb]

Let's not go off on tangents now. There seem to be quite a few here.

Back to tongues, k? So if we look through scripture, we see there was a specific purpose for tongues in the NT. It seems that that purpose no longer applies in the way people are claiming tongues are given for today?

 

[Hammster]

Let's not go off on tangents now. There seem to be quite a few here.

Back to tongues, k? So if we look through scripture, we see there was a specific purpose for tongues in the NT. It seems that that purpose no longer applies in the way people are claiming tongues are given for today?

Even in the book of Acts there is a diminishing use of tongues.


Sent from my iPhone using my right thumb.

 

[popsthebuilder]

According to 1 Corinthians 14 the only tongues that are referred to that are useful or true are not the absolute nonsense that is displayed. It also states that when in the company of foreigners there needs to be two or three who speak the foreign language and one that translates.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[tango]

Let's not go off on tangents now. There seem to be quite a few here.

Back to tongues, k? So if we look through scripture, we see there was a specific purpose for tongues in the NT. It seems that that purpose no longer applies in the way people are claiming tongues are given for today?

There was a specific purpose then and there's no reason to assume that same purpose shouldn't apply now. What's to stop us giving a message in our native language and someone who doesn't speak our language hearing it in their own language? We wouldn't even know what had happened, nobody around us would know what had happened, and the person who heard in their native language would most likely just assume we happened to speak their language.

Paul wrote of speaking with the "tongues of men and of angels" in 1Co 13:1, although it's arguable whether his inference was "I do speak in tongues of men and angels" or "even if I were to speak in tongues of men and angels". But then in 1Co 14:2 he writes how "he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God", which is pretty clear that the tongue doesn't necessarily have to be a language understood by anyone present, nor indeed does it have to be a human tongue at all. The counterbalance to that is in 14:27-28 where he says that if there is no interpreter the person speaking in tongues should be silent, speaking to himself and to God. I struggle to draw any conclusion other than that people may pray in tongues but if they speak forth a tongue it must be accompanied by an interpretation or they should keep quiet.

Why does that purpose no longer apply today?

 

[tango]

According to 1 Corinthians 14 the only tongues that are referred to that are useful or true are not the absolute nonsense that is displayed. It also states that when in the company of foreigners there needs to be two or three who speak the foreign language and one that translates.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

I don't think you can draw that conclusion - I think what Paul was saying there was that if people are speaking out loud in tongues in church the correct procedure is to wait for an interpretation, and no more than two or three should do such a thing. If you're speaking in tongues in the presence of someone who understands the language you are speaking you clearly don't need a translator.

If you've got a church service that's constantly being interrupted by yet another person speaking in tongues you have chaos. If people are shouting over each other in tongues making sure they are head, you have chaos. If you have tongues without an interpretation you have nothing of value - whether it's a divinely inspired tongue or just someone making up something at random makes little difference to the people who heard something they couldn't understand.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I don't think you can draw that conclusion - I think what Paul was saying there was that if people are speaking out loud in tongues in church the correct procedure is to wait for an interpretation, and no more than two or three should do such a thing. If you're speaking in tongues in the presence of someone who understands the language you are speaking you clearly don't need a translator.

If you've got a church service that's constantly being interrupted by yet another person speaking in tongues you have chaos. If people are shouting over each other in tongues making sure they are head, you have chaos. If you have tongues without an interpretation you have nothing of value - whether it's a divinely inspired tongue or just someone making up something at random makes little difference to the people who heard something they couldn't understand.

That's pretty much what is written. False tongues without real interpretation is counter productive toward the word and work of God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

I guess nobody thought that the video clip was a recording of a message from God (including the gibberish spoken in it). That is no surprise yet many believed it was at the time and the poster of the video clip (on youtube) seems to believe it is a message from God or at the very least that it could be. The tongues in that message could quite easily be transcribed .. ying ding bing etcetera .. tuta. Well, I am still waiting from sommebody to produce a credible example coherent translatable language spoken in a charismatic meeting as 'tongues'.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It's all like that trope "ishoodabotahondabutibotakia" said with some speed and proper syllable division the above sounds like many a 'tongue' message but in this case it has real meaning and content yet it is not a message from heaven.

 

[Tallguy88]

I guess nobody thought that the video clip was a recording of a message from God (including the gibberish spoken in it). That is no surprise yet many believed it was at the time and the poster of the video clip (on youtube) seems to believe it is a message from God or at the very least that it could be. The tongues in that message could quite easily be transcribed .. ying ding bing etcetera .. tuta. Well, I am still waiting from sommebody to produce a credible example coherent translatable language spoken in a charismatic meeting as 'tongues'.

I saw nothing out of the ordinary with the video, though I only watched it half way. He didn't seem to "feel" it quite like I've seen, but everyone experiences the Spirit differently I suppose. It's easier to discern whether it is genuine or not if I'm actually there or at least know the person. I don't know that man, nor was I there. So all I've got to go on it a video without much context.