Are Tongues Real?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by loran adkins

And yet I have known of several people who have sought for the gift of the holy ghost by speaking in tongues for more than a year, that manifested more of a Godly spirit during that time than many that claimed to have the holy ghost by speaking in tongues, the only reason they were told that they did not have the holy ghost was because as yet they did not speak in tongues.

What is being said here is that there are people who are sweeter and nicer than other people, even those those other people claim to have the Pentecostal experience. This is then used to infer that the Pentecostal experience isn't real.

But consider:

"I have known a lot of Buddhists, atheists, and Hindus who manifested a more godly and righteous spirit than many that claim to be Christians." So should it be inferred from this that Christianity is false?

What people really mean is "I have known a lot of people who didn't have the Pentecostal experience but whose personalities were more to my liking than a lot of professing Pentecostals' were, so therefore we should discount the Pentecostal experience as being valid or indicative of anything."

Godly isn't defined as "sweet kind and lovable", but as righteous and conformed to the will of God. The real Holy Ghost leads people into the truth. So if a person isn't being led into truth then they do not have evidence of any real walk with God nor do they have any ongoing evidence of a genuine Pentecostal experience. At best they are backslidden, at worst they are a false professor with a spurious "conversion". And the fact a Christian who did in fact receive the Holy Ghost can backslide does not have any bearing on the validity of Pentecost, in general or in their particular case.

Unless one believes in TULIP and is a Calvinist.

Which shows a lot of the hubbub around here is really just people with no critical thinking skills attempting to justify their own current condition.

As for people without the Holy Ghost but who are "godly", yeah, whodathunkit?

Luke 1:5-6 KJV
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. [6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Matthew 1:18-19 KJV
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Acts 10:1-2 KJV
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

And commenting on Cornelius:

Acts 10:34-35 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Amazing, isn't it?

[jfrog]

Don't know if they are real but I can still speak in them and it's been at least 10 years, probably longer since I've stepped foot in a church.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Don't know if they are real but I can still speak in them and it's been at least 10 years, probably longer since I've stepped foot in a church.

Oh, you don’t like Christian’s?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is being said here is that there are people who are sweeter and nicer than other people, even those those other people claim to have the Pentecostal experience. This is then used to infer that the Pentecostal experience isn't real.

But consider:

"I have known a lot of Buddhists, atheists, and Hindus who manifested a more godly and righteous spirit than many that claim to be Christians." So should it be inferred from this that Christianity is false?

What people really mean is "I have known a lot of people who didn't have the Pentecostal experience but whose personalities were more to my liking than a lot of professing Pentecostals' were, so therefore we should discount the Pentecostal experience as being valid or indicative of anything."

Godly isn't defined as "sweet kind and lovable", but as righteous and conformed to the will of God. The real Holy Ghost leads people into the truth. So if a person isn't being led into truth then they do not have evidence of any real walk with God nor do they have any ongoing evidence of a genuine Pentecostal experience. At best they are backslidden, at worst they are a false professor with a spurious "conversion". And the fact a Christian who did in fact receive the Holy Ghost can backslide does not have any bearing on the validity of Pentecost, in general or in their particular case.

Unless one believes in TULIP and is a Calvinist.

Which shows a lot of the hubbub around here is really just people with no critical thinking skills attempting to justify their own current condition.

As for people without the Holy Ghost but who are "godly", yeah, whodathunkit?

Luke 1:5-6 KJV
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. [6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Matthew 1:18-19 KJV
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Acts 10:1-2 KJV
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

And commenting on Cornelius:

Acts 10:34-35 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Amazing, isn't it?

You nailed it beautifully.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Quite the opposite, actually, so how you inferred that from what I wrote makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Welcome to the club.

Ditto

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What is being said here is that there are people who are sweeter and nicer than other people, even those those other people claim to have the Pentecostal experience. This is then used to infer that the Pentecostal experience isn't real.

But consider:

"I have known a lot of Buddhists, atheists, and Hindus who manifested a more godly and righteous spirit than many that claim to be Christians." So should it be inferred from this that Christianity is false?

What people really mean is "I have known a lot of people who didn't have the Pentecostal experience but whose personalities were more to my liking than a lot of professing Pentecostals' were, so therefore we should discount the Pentecostal experience as being valid or indicative of anything."

Godly isn't defined as "sweet kind and lovable", but as righteous and conformed to the will of God. The real Holy Ghost leads people into the truth. So if a person isn't being led into truth then they do not have evidence of any real walk with God nor do they have any ongoing evidence of a genuine Pentecostal experience. At best they are backslidden, at worst they are a false professor with a spurious "conversion". And the fact a Christian who did in fact receive the Holy Ghost can backslide does not have any bearing on the validity of Pentecost, in general or in their particular case.

Unless one believes in TULIP and is a Calvinist.

Which shows a lot of the hubbub around here is really just people with no critical thinking skills attempting to justify their own current condition.

As for people without the Holy Ghost but who are "godly", yeah, whodathunkit?

Luke 1:5-6 KJV
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. [6] And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Matthew 1:18-19 KJV
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

Acts 10:1-2 KJV
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, [2] A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

And commenting on Cornelius:

Acts 10:34-35 KJV
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Amazing, isn't it?

Pathos over Doxos.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Don't know if they are real but I can still speak in them and it's been at least 10 years, probably longer since I've stepped foot in a church.

Why would you want to speak something you aren't even sure is "real". For, if there's a chance the tongues you can still speak with aren't "real", then by default you are uselessly babbling to yourself.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Did you just prove that the gift (evidence) and the gift are not one and the same?

Sorry, brother, but I don't understand the question. Please elaborate.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by james34

If Joel is used, then what are the dreams , visions, and prophecy he speaks of? Are they evidence of the Holy Ghost or gifts of the Holy Ghost?

Yes, they are evidence of the Holy Spirit. Did not God say as much?

Paul did quote Isaiah, this is correct. He pointed out that tongues were for a sign to the “unbeliever”. How do you not see this as having taken place at Pentecost? So you say the tongues at Pentecost were not a “gift”, but an “evidence tongue”. If so, then the evidence we profess must match that at Pentecost, and it must be understood by those around who hear us. If it is not this way then you have something different than what happened at Pentecost, which is, the people around them understood them. Don’t try to make it fit like some cheating on a jigsaw puzzle, and “if the right person were present , they would be able to understand the tongue”. On the day of Pentecost , the right people were present , so to claim the same experience we must follow suit!

The reason this didn't take place at Pentecost is because there weren't any Spirit-given charismata of interpretation of tongues. Think it through. Paul made it clear that if there is going to be a diverse tongue, it should happen at most, three times, and then it must be interpreted, or it is indecent and disordered. Is that what occurred on Pentecost?

And, as far as the same experience as Pentecost, you have to keep in mind a few things, from the Greek text of Acts.

In Acts 2:4, the tongues mentioned are called heterais glossais.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/2-4.htm

In Acts 10:46, the next example in the text, the tongues there are merely called glossais.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/10-46.htm

The same is true of Acts 19:6.

See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/19-6.htm

The question I put before you is this:

Is there a difference between the two, that is, between heterais glossais and glossais? I leave it up to you to decide.

(And for full measure, 1 Corinthians 12:10 uses the phrase gene glosson. See: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_c...ians/12-10.htm)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Why would you want to speak something you aren't even sure is "real". For, if there's a chance the tongues you can still speak with aren't "real", then by default you are uselessly babbling to yourself.

I think as the resident unbeliever he's just playing his part.