Speaking in Tongues and Gifts of the Spirit

[First and the Last]

Does anyone believe Speaking in Tongues and Gifts of the Spirit are still available today?

 

[Charlie24]

Does anyone believe Speaking in Tongues and Gifts of the Spirit are still available today?

You may have few responses in this thread. Maybe it was before you came, but we had some heated conversation on tongues and the gifts recently.

Most are probably taking a rest from it.

 

[First and the Last]

You may have few responses in this thread. Maybe it was before you came, but we had some heated conversation on tongues and the gifts recently.

Most are probably taking a rest from it.

Yeah you're probably right. I have seen it before on other forums in fact christianchat deleted my account out of nowhere because I believe they are and the majority didn't. Just out of curiosity what is your stance?

 

[Charlie24]

Yeah you're probably right. I have seen it before on other forums in fact christianchat deleted my account out of nowhere because I believe they are and the majority didn't. Just out of curiosity what is your stance?

I say that the tongues issue has solid arguments on both sides. I don't speak in tongues and lean toward tongues being ceased.

But at the same time I'm not going to point a finger at those who do speak in tongues.

I don't know if you've ever heard Jimmy Swaggart speak on tongues, being a Pentecostal I would think so, but he makes a very convincing argument for tongues.

The gifts argument is a tough one, I've seen that argument get fierce, here and other forums. I really don't want to fire that off again.

 

[First and the Last]

I say that the tongues issue has solid arguments on both sides. I don't speak in tongues and lean toward tongues being ceased.

But at the same time I'm not going to point a finger at those who do speak in tongues.

I don't know if you've ever heard Jimmy Swaggart speak on tongues, being a Pentecostal I would think so, but he makes a very convincing argument for tongues.

The gifts argument is a tough one, I've seen that argument get fierce, here and other forums. I really don't want to fire that off again.

I have heard, very much so, about Jimmy Swaggart bought a Bible from them couple years ago. What I get hung up on and seek God's knowledge on is Acts 2:38 no need to quote that we know what it says. (besides this site does it for you) Now I am not using this just because of oneness but just simply scripture itself. Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

The phrase "they were pricked in their heart" uses the Greek word "katanusso," which means to pierce or stab deeply. This metaphorical language conveys a profound emotional and spiritual impact. The audience, consisting of Jews from various regions gathered for Pentecost, is deeply moved by the realization of their role in the crucifixion of Jesus, whom Peter identifies as both Lord and Christ. The Holy Spirit's conviction penetrates their hearts, leading to an acute awareness of their guilt and need for repentance.

The reaction of the crowd is immediate and urgent, as reflected in their question, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" This inquiry demonstrates a sincere desire for guidance and a readiness to respond to the message they have just heard. It indicates a crucial turning point, where the listeners, having been convicted of their sin, seek to understand the necessary steps for Salvation.

The response "what shall we do?" is not merely a request for information but a profound plea for salvation. It underscores the recognition that knowledge of their sin and the Messiah's identity requires a transformative response. This moment sets the stage for Peter's subsequent call to repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

Its plain in Scripture and that is why I believe Speaking in Tongues is still available as well as baptism are necessary. Some believe and some don't. That is what I get hung up on when its plainly written with really no need for interpretation. I just like to add extra in for clarification. But we don't want to bring that up either. I was just telling you my belief.

 

[Charlie24]

I have heard, very much so, about Jimmy Swaggart bought a Bible from them couple years ago. What I get hung up on and seek God's knowledge on is Acts 2:38 no need to quote that we know what it says. (besides this site does it for you) Now I am not using this just because of oneness but just simply scripture itself. Acts 2:37 "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"

The phrase "they were pricked in their heart" uses the Greek word "katanusso," which means to pierce or stab deeply. This metaphorical language conveys a profound emotional and spiritual impact. The audience, consisting of Jews from various regions gathered for Pentecost, is deeply moved by the realization of their role in the crucifixion of Jesus, whom Peter identifies as both Lord and Christ. The Holy Spirit's conviction penetrates their hearts, leading to an acute awareness of their guilt and need for repentance.

The reaction of the crowd is immediate and urgent, as reflected in their question, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" This inquiry demonstrates a sincere desire for guidance and a readiness to respond to the message they have just heard. It indicates a crucial turning point, where the listeners, having been convicted of their sin, seek to understand the necessary steps for Salvation.

The response "what shall we do?" is not merely a request for information but a profound plea for salvation. It underscores the recognition that knowledge of their sin and the Messiah's identity requires a transformative response. This moment sets the stage for Peter's subsequent call to repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and the promise of receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

Its plain in Scripture and that is why I believe Speaking in Tongues is still available as well as baptism are necessary. Some believe and some don't. That is what I get hung up on when its plainly written with really no need for interpretation. I just like to add extra in for clarification. But we don't want to bring that up either. I was just telling you my belief.

Jimmy Swaggart and I believe exactly the same thing throughout Scripture, except for the tongues. I'm not as sure about the tongues as he is, but the rest of the Scripture, we are two peas in the same pod. I've read almost all of his commentary on the Scripture.

He doesn't agree with the Oneness Movement at all. He makes many points as a Pentecostal pastor that puts the Pentecostal Oneness Movement to shame. He's not shy about it either.

 

[First and the Last]

Jimmy Swaggart and I believe exactly the same thing throughout Scripture, except for the tongues. I'm not as sure about the tongues as he is, but the rest of the Scripture, we are two peas in the same pod. I've read almost all of his commentary on the Scripture.

He doesn't agree with the Oneness Movement at all. He makes many points as a Pentecostal pastor that puts the Pentecostal Oneness Movement to shame. He's not shy about it either.

I know He and I don't see eye to eye on the nature of God, but I have to say His commentary on everything else is outstanding. And one of the main reasons is in Acts They are asking How to be saved and peter filled with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:38 gave a direct command and instructions on how to be saved. Not everyone believes that though.

 

[Charlie24]

Jimmy Swaggart and I believe exactly the same thing throughout Scripture, except for the tongues. I'm not as sure about the tongues as he is, but the rest of the Scripture, we are two peas in the same pod. I've read almost all of his commentary on the Scripture.

He doesn't agree with the Oneness Movement at all. He makes many points as a Pentecostal pastor that puts the Pentecostal Oneness Movement to shame. He's not shy about it either.

I know He and I don't see eye to eye on the nature of God, but I have to say His commentary on everything else is outstanding. And one of the main reasons is in Acts They are asking How to be saved and peter filled with the Holy Ghost in Acts 2:38 gave a direct command and instructions on how to be saved. Not everyone believes that though.

Swaggart said in his commentary, but has been said by many others before, that "for the remission of sins" should have been translated "because of the remission of sins."

The remission of sin comes the very moment you repent. So this is the correct translation.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ "BECAUSE OF" the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

You're not being water baptized to receive the remission of sins, you're being water baptized because your sins were forgiven the instant you repented.

 

[Charlie24]

Swaggart said in his commentary, but has been said by many others before, that "for the remission of sins" should have been translated "because of the remission of sins."

The remission of sin comes the very moment you repent. So this is the correct translation.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ "BECAUSE OF" the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

You're not being water baptized to receive the remission of sins, you're being water baptized because your sins were forgiven the instant you repented.

It's 4 am here, I can't believe it's that late. I'll talk with you tomorrow afternoon.

 

[First and the Last]

Swaggart said in his commentary, but has been said by many others before, that "for the remission of sins" should have been translated "because of the remission of sins."

The remission of sin comes the very moment you repent. So this is the correct translation.

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ "BECAUSE OF" the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

You're not being water baptized to receive the remission of sins, you're being water baptized because your sins were forgiven the instant you repented.

I know He does, but at the same time we are ignoring the obvious conjunction AND (A conjunction is a word that is used to connect words, phrases, and clauses.) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Even if translated because of this Scripture still says you need both repentance and baptism.

The Greek preposition "εἰς" (eis) is typically translated as "into," "to," "for," or "toward," depending on the context. While it can occasionally mean "because of" in some Greek literature, this is rare and usually determined by the broader context and usage patterns in the specific text. The traditional translation of "εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν" (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn) in Acts 2:38 is "for the remission of sins." Let’s examine whether it should be understood as "for" or "because of" in this context.

The primary meaning of "εἰς" in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, is directional or purpose-oriented. It indicates movement towards a goal or result, which aligns with the traditional rendering "for the remission of sins."

Peter's audience, upon hearing his sermon, asks what they should do in response to being convicted of their sins (Acts 2:37). Peter instructs them to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." The construction suggests that repentance and baptism are steps towards achieving the remission of sins.

Similar phrases using "εἰς" in the New Testament typically denote purpose or result rather than cause. For example, in Matthew 26:28, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν). Here, "εἰς" clearly indicates purpose.

Most Greek scholars and reputable translations understand "εἰς" in Acts 2:38 as indicating purpose or result, hence translating it as "for the remission of sins." This is supported by the majority of English Bible translations and scholarly works on Koine Greek.

The interpretation of "εἰς" in Acts 2:38 also hinges on theological perspectives. Those who hold to baptismal regeneration see it as necessary for the remission of sins, supporting the translation "for." Those who view baptism as an outward symbol might prefer "because of," but this interpretation is more theological than linguistic.

I take Scripture as its written if the Holy Spirit wanted a different meaning or word added or taken away it would have been there already.

Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

[Charlie24]

I know He does, but at the same time we are ignoring the obvious conjunction AND (A conjunction is a word that is used to connect words, phrases, and clauses.) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Even if translated because of this Scripture still says you need both repentance and baptism.

The Greek preposition "εἰς" (eis) is typically translated as "into," "to," "for," or "toward," depending on the context. While it can occasionally mean "because of" in some Greek literature, this is rare and usually determined by the broader context and usage patterns in the specific text. The traditional translation of "εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν" (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn) in Acts 2:38 is "for the remission of sins." Let’s examine whether it should be understood as "for" or "because of" in this context.

The primary meaning of "εἰς" in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament, is directional or purpose-oriented. It indicates movement towards a goal or result, which aligns with the traditional rendering "for the remission of sins."

Peter's audience, upon hearing his sermon, asks what they should do in response to being convicted of their sins (Acts 2:37). Peter instructs them to "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." The construction suggests that repentance and baptism are steps towards achieving the remission of sins.

Similar phrases using "εἰς" in the New Testament typically denote purpose or result rather than cause. For example, in Matthew 26:28, Jesus says, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν). Here, "εἰς" clearly indicates purpose.

Most Greek scholars and reputable translations understand "εἰς" in Acts 2:38 as indicating purpose or result, hence translating it as "for the remission of sins." This is supported by the majority of English Bible translations and scholarly works on Koine Greek.

The interpretation of "εἰς" in Acts 2:38 also hinges on theological perspectives. Those who hold to baptismal regeneration see it as necessary for the remission of sins, supporting the translation "for." Those who view baptism as an outward symbol might prefer "because of," but this interpretation is more theological than linguistic.

I take Scripture as its written if the Holy Spirit wanted a different meaning or word added or taken away it would have been there already.

Revelation 22:18-19: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Here's how Acts 2:28 should have been translated. They repented at the preaching of Peter, just as Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah.

Matt. 12:41
"The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here."

 

[B-A-C]

Here's how Acts 2:28 should have been translated.

2:28 ? or 2:38 ?

 

[Charlie24]

2:28 ? or 2:38 ?

Good eye BAC, I never even noticed it. I meant Acts 2:38.

 

[Rockerduck]

Good eye BAC, I never even noticed it. I meant Acts 2:38.

I had nothing but trouble from that verse. I've met so many that think they are saved and have the Holy Spirit because they are baptized. You cannot convince them otherwise. The problem is that the Pastors are telling them this. Methodists and Catholics are the main culprits.

 

[Charlie24]

I had nothing but trouble from that verse. I've met so many that think they are saved and have the Holy Spirit because they are baptized. You cannot convince them otherwise. The problem is that the Pastors are telling them this. Methodists and Catholics are the main culprits.

That makes 2 of us. I have had conversions from the Atheist Forums, from and Atheist to a believer in Christ, but never have I had success with water baptizers for salvation. That's quite a statement but it's true.

 

[MedicBravo]

They don't add up.
Toungues:
I have had a handful of people one on here who "claims to have" and can do it at will. That's now how Gifts work.
Copeland in videos tries to be but it's just made up gibberish. Most importantly "tongue speaking" is NOT some supernatural, heavenly language. If it were, there'd be no benefit b/c we couldn't understand it.
It is speaking a language that one has no or very little knowledge of but with perfect annunciation and without error. There must be another to interpret b/c very few areas exist where there aren't multiple languages.
Worse, is there are many liars who do know multiple languages, say they don't, and have been caught and one instance the guy was making praise and prayer to Satan.

Healing:
I'm not going to believe anyone on "I said so therefore.....(insert supernatural event here)."
a. Who decides who gets the healing? By the Bible then everyone who comes to such a person should be healed.
b. If some get healed and others don't then that shows errors and instability. Were they not faithful enough? Was the healer biased for or against in some way? Did the sick not "do enough"? No.

The internet is almost everywhere on this rock. If such healings existed, we'd find out who can do them, did them, and who was healed. There'd be evidence to back it.

 

[joestue]

I had a lengthy explanation typed up regarding the private prayer language known as "tongues"

but i can't find it, it may be in a deleted thread that's no longer searchable.

Anyhow, basically we have a problem of non christians can speak in tongues too. However, i have witnessed legitimate spiritual stuff, and the language spoken by the man praying for someone, was of the same language structure as english. but it was not english, and this does not supprise me, as i believe i have a reasonable means to explain what is going on:

So anyhow, basically our spirit, given to us by God allegedly around the time of conception or perhaps after the first trimester. --well it desires communication. it desires a relationship with God. And it has to learn how to speak the native tongue of its parents. All manner of nonsense can interrupt this process, and we find that most of the time, the experiences reported by people praying tongues for the first time, is that its healing for them to do so. the same is reported when non christians discover it.

Basically if your spirit didn't desire communication, humans would never have learned to speak. same goes for animals.. they can talk too. to me, yes, hehe.. /sarc.

So anyhow, if you can't pray to God in your own, emotionaly and rationally authentic made up language, i'm sorry, but it really is that simple. its also not nessisary if you don't have a lot of internal trauma. you should know your own heart and shoud not have need of releasing any ptsd, because you shouldn't have any.

As far as prophetic and non prophetic utterances in languages you don't know.. yes that's not unheard of, and if you get out more and get to know random Christians and build up trust, they will tell you their experiences, much of which involves sharing the gospel, and healing people, which is what we should be doing.

not arguing about what someone says with their spirit, groaning in the darkness of their prayer closet. -and yes they should know what they are saying. paul didn't, but that's his problem, not mine. -he seems to boast about being able to pray with his mind, and his spirit at the same time. i really don't think that's possible unless you're on the dissociative spectrum, and its really just different parts of your mind talking at the same time.

 

[Charlie24]

I had a lengthy explanation typed up regarding the private prayer language known as "tongues"

but i can't find it, it may be in a deleted thread that's no longer searchable.

Anyhow, basically we have a problem of non christians can speak in tongues too. However, i have witnessed legitimate spiritual stuff, and the language spoken by the man praying for someone, was of the same language structure as english. but it was not english, and this does not supprise me, as i believe i have a reasonable means to explain what is going on:

So anyhow, basically our spirit, given to us by God allegedly around the time of conception or perhaps after the first trimester. --well it desires communication. it desires a relationship with God. And it has to learn how to speak the native tongue of its parents. All manner of nonsense can interrupt this process, and we find that most of the time, the experiences reported by people praying tongues for the first time, is that its healing for them to do so. the same is reported when non christians discover it.

Basically if your spirit didn't desire communication, humans would never have learned to speak. same goes for animals.. they can talk too. to me, yes, hehe.. /sarc.

So anyhow, if you can't pray to God in your own, emotionaly and rationally authentic made up language, i'm sorry, but it really is that simple. its also not nessisary if you don't have a lot of internal trauma. you should know your own heart and shoud not have need of releasing any ptsd, because you shouldn't have any.

As far as prophetic and non prophetic utterances in languages you don't know.. yes that's not unheard of, and if you get out more and get to know random Christians and build up trust, they will tell you their experiences, much of which involves sharing the gospel, and healing people, which is what we should be doing.

not arguing about what someone says with their spirit, groaning in the darkness of their prayer closet. -and yes they should know what they are saying. paul didn't, but that's his problem, not mine. -he seems to boast about being able to pray with his mind, and his spirit at the same time. i really don't think that's possible unless you're on the dissociative spectrum, and its really just different parts of your mind talking at the same time.

This is the 2nd time I've seen you throw insults at the apostle Paul.

Everything we know about tongues came from him, he corrected the Church on the use of tongues.

Now I see you're correcting him. What's wrong with this picture?

 

[B-A-C]

Everything we know about tongues came from him,

Maybe not everything.

Mark 16:17; "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

The book of Acts was written by Luke.

Acts 2:3; And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
Acts 2:4; And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Acts 2:11; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
Acts 10:46; For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

 

[Charlie24]

Maybe not everything.

Mark 16:17; "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues;

The book of Acts was written by Luke.

Acts 2:3; And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them.
Acts 2:4; And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
Acts 2:11; Cretans and Arabs—we hear them in our own tongues speaking of the mighty deeds of God."
Acts 10:46; For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered,

That's true, good point! The Holy Spirit is the master of tongues, and there are illustrations of it.

Paul is the only one to explain the use of tongues for us. We would have no ideas of the proper use without his instruction.