If I've been babtized by the Holy Spirit, why cant I speak in tongues?

[ewq1938]

If by your use of gibberish, you are referring to the non-inspired 'look at me' type unintelligible nonsense we sometimes hear, you are absolutely correct.

The only thing I can judge is whether or not they interpreted their 'gibberish' or not, and if they or someone else did not interpret it, they were out of order.

I have yet to hear the true tongues spoken. I have been in churches that practiced it, but no true occurrences ever manifested and as the one posted mentioned, there is no need of the tongues if all already speak the same language.

Have you ever listened to the Navajo language? Utter gibberish. It most of the time does not 'sound' like a language. More like a collection of animalistic type grunts. If I heard it spoken in a church somewhere not knowing it was Navajo, I might be tempted to judge it as 'just gibberish'.

That doesn't sound like gibberish to me but other gibberish is easy to spot. Unless practiced, no one can ever say the same "words" in order that they did before simply because many times it is simply made up on the spot. The Navajo naturally could say the same sentences since their language is a real language, regardless of pronunciation.

Since you spoke of the 'definition' of gibberish, you got my curiosity up, so I looked it up:

Yep, that's it alright...

[ewq1938]

At any rate, I'm wondering how one might discern if another is speaking in the tongues of angels?

Any time angels spoken in the bible, no matter who they spoke to, they were understood perfectly. I believe they are capable of speaking in the true "tongues" which means they need no interpreter (As in Acts) which is different than the kind of tongues man can speak which is simply foreign languages and if the audience doesn't speak that language then the speaker must have someone to interpret for them. There is no "mystical" sounding "language" that comes from God.

[Slug1]

I have yet to hear the true tongues spoken. I have been in churches that practiced it, but no true occurrences ever manifested and as the one posted mentioned, there is no need of the tongues if all already speak the same language.

If God is to speak a prophetic word to a church for their edification, a method explained by Paul is through the manifestation of tongues. 1-3 people will be empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues and many call this gibberish because it is a language ONLY God understands. Many call it gibberish because it is impossible to be understood unless interpretation of tongues is manifested as well. So, another person in the church is given the manifestation of Interpretation of Tongues. When that person is speaking, the message from God is understood by ALL in the church... thus the "edification" purpose of tongues. Now, if 1-3 people stand up and begin to speak in English because that is the language of the church... HOW are they to be edified by God? God's not doing the speaking... man is. Thus the reason for the tongues, and then the interpretation of tongues so the church KNOWS that the Holy Spirit is manifesting and God is speaking. Only by the POWER of God can man do this and thus, the entire church is edified because God is speaking.

Now... if people don't believe, well... they have chosen to NOT be edified as they would rather hold to their belief instead of receiving edification.

If a "person" is to be edified by the manifestation of tongues, then they are to speak to themselves and not OUT LOUD so all can hear.

[Slug1]

Any time angels spoken in the bible, no matter who they spoke to, they were understood perfectly. I believe they are capable of speaking in the true "tongues" which means they need no interpreter (As in Acts) which is different than the kind of tongues man can speak which is simply foreign languages and if the audience doesn't speak that language then the speaker must have someone to interpret for them. There is no "mystical" sounding "language" that comes from God.

Bible states there are "kinds" of tongues and the examples in the Bible are the kind in 1 Cor 12-14 and this kind is also in Acts 10 and 19. Another kind of tongues is in Acts 2.

[ewq1938]

If God is to speak a prophetic word to a church for their edification, a method explained by Paul is through the manifestation of tongues. 1-3 people will be empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues and many call this gibberish because it is a language ONLY God understands.

I disagree that this is what the bible is describing.

[Slug1]

I disagree that this is what the bible is describing.

You disagree with how I explained it, or you disagree with the scriptures? Shall I post them all and let them speak for themselves?

[ewq1938]

You disagree with how I explained it, or you disagree with the scriptures?

Yours of course. I don't disagree with the scriptures. You don't recall us discussing all this a couple months ago? We don't interpret the passages the same way. I doubt we will see things differently after such a short time...

[Slug1]

Yours of course. I don't disagree with the scriptures. You don't recall us discussing all this a couple months ago? We don't interpret the passages the same way. I doubt we will see things differently after such a short time...

Hooah... I'll have to repost the scriptures later then anyway... God always does the talking much better than I do

So today within the Body of Christ when God does empower 1-3 to speak in tongues and then another to interpret the tongues that are being spoken so the church this happens in, is edified... does this align with what God had Paul instructed to the Body of Christ??

Does your interpretation mean that this don't happen today, or does your interpretation only mean you don't accept that this happens today?

I know that today when a church is filled with a bunch of tongue talkers trying to out speak the next... this is the WHOLE REASON that Paul went to Corinth to FIX THAT PROBLEM. Same problem still exists today and that is what people focus on... the problem. Then there are churches that have been discipled by the words Paul wrote to the Corinthians and when tongues are spoken, it is very orderly and done the way that Paul instructed.

[Watchman]

Any time angels spoken in the bible, no matter who they spoke to, they were understood perfectly. I believe they are capable of speaking in the true "tongues" which means they need no interpreter (As in Acts) which is different than the kind of tongues man can speak which is simply foreign languages and if the audience doesn't speak that language then the speaker must have someone to interpret for them. There is no "mystical" sounding "language" that comes from God.

Why do you suppose Paul differentiated between the tongues of men and the tongues of angels in 1 Corinthians 13?

W

[divaD]

Any time angels spoken in the bible, no matter who they spoke to, they were understood perfectly. I believe they are capable of speaking in the true "tongues" which means they need no interpreter (As in Acts) which is different than the kind of tongues man can speak which is simply foreign languages and if the audience doesn't speak that language then the speaker must have someone to interpret for them. There is no "mystical" sounding "language" that comes from God.

There is no way you can make this work with the text in 1 Cor 14. It absolutely makes the text nonsensical. For example, tho it seems some just miss this point all together.

1 Corinthians 14:5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

This would be demeaning to the person if he spoke only in another language, which would be no fault of his own.

I would that ye all spake with FOREIGN LANGUAGES, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with FOREIGN LANGUAGE, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

IOW because this person speaks a different language, then what he has to say has no real value.

1 Corinthians 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

IOW...

Wherefore let him that speaketh in a FOREIGN LANGUAGE pray that he may interpret HIS OWN FOREIGN LANGUAGE.

Yep, that makes a lot a sense.

But the following is why I have problems with the tongues of today.

1 Corinthians 14:22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

It clearly spells it out here...Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not. That in no way matches the tongues of today. Tongues are never used in this manner today, or at least not in any of the churches I used to attend when I was Charismatic a number of years ago. Who is it a sign for? The preceding verse tells us exactly who...With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. It would have to be the Jews, since that's who the Lord was trying to get thru to. It clearly says 'this people'. That's being specific, and not speaking in generalities.

[jesse]

You're not answering my question and it would be in your best interest to do so

Are you saying that those who presently speak in tongues and operate in the gift of healing and prophecy are "false prophets performing signs and wonders"?

No. Those who speak in tongues are not prophets. Neither are those who heal people prophets. So that verse you quoted does not apply to those two catagories. As for prophets.... i don't know any. And i have never heard of any. If you have, what have they prophecied? And has it come true?

[jesse]

Hi Ewq1938,

I, too, have heard a lot of gibberish. Some, however, call it the tongues of angels, as Paul referenced in 1 Corinthians 13. I'm wondering if they're correct or not? I hate to use fallen angels as any sort of witness, but one Friday night about 20 years ago, I found myself in Dallas with nothing to do. I decided to attend a Church on the Rock Friday night service. Some dude from South America in a purple zoot suit was preaching and he asked that we all pray together. Everyone was standing and praying aloud. Then he said, 'switch over into your prayer language.' This lady behind me started with a repetitive 'ba ba ba balooo' sort of gibberish and clamped her hand tightly on my shoulder. Having been raised in the Church of Christ, this was all very unsettling to me. When she grabbed my shoulder, it startled me, and I prayed silently, "Father, if that's a demon, please make it stop!" Immediatedly her hand literally flew off my shoulder and she was silent. I turned to look at her and her mouth was open and her eyes wide as pie plates. I left right then. At any rate, I'm wondering how one might discern if another is speaking in the tongues of angels?

W

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13:1

Very popular misinterpretation. The "tongues ... of angels" is an extreme. Similar to a "clanging cymbal" He is speaking in extremes. If i drive my car so fast it lifts from the ground and takes flight.... is also an extreme. The point of the passage is the value of love. It is more important than any other gift.

All other references to speaking in tongues means only in another human language like an English man speaking french or something of that nature.

Weather it is demons or the power of their own mind that causes them to "speak in the tongues of angels" i don't know.

Why does no one start a church of the unclanging cymbal? Why do people automatically recognize the one extreme but not the other?

[divaD]

I decided to attend a Church on the Rock Friday night service.

That wouldn't have been the same church pastored by Larry Lea at the time, in Rockwall across Lake Ray Hubbard by chance? If by chance it's the same church, I used to attend that church regularally in the mid or late 80s or so. It was because of my experiences there that I got so turned off to Charismatic. I haven't been a Charismatic since, nor do I ever believe I could be one again. I'm not dissing Charismatics tho, I'm just saying that kind of thing is not for me anymore. I witnessed too much nonsense at the time, tho at the time I didn't find it to be nonsensical at all.

[ewq1938]

Why do you suppose Paul differentiated between the tongues of men and the tongues of angels in 1 Corinthians 13?

W

Because they are different.

[ewq1938]

IOW because this person speaks a different language, then what he has to say has no real value.

No value unless its interpreted so everyone can know what was spoken. This is very much about foreign languages, human languages.