Speaking in Tongues

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5451438]You are dodging, heis. Using the early fathers provided above in the thread, please demonstrate where they were forced to believe something different than what the Apostles believed and taught.

I believe I already have in a prior post, but I don’t believe they were forced. I believe they interpretation is what is in question, but not on all things. As I said before, if one word is changed, it can change much.

It is your stone, heis. You are alleging that the Catholic Church departed from the Apostolic teachings. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to show how this happened.

And you would then believe?

No. You are talking about private revelations and perceptions, and we are talking about what God revealed to the Church. Two separate groups of people.

No, we are talking about what was written of the apostles and the traditions of the CC. If a tradition of the CC is not scriptural, then I will not accept it

You are dodgnint, heis. Using the early fathers provided above in the thread, please demonstrate where they were forced to believe something different than what the Apostles believed and taught.

Show me where the apostles where the apostles taught there are not three baptisms in scripture. Show me where it says a man is not saved by faith alone. Show me where it says that when a man is baptized in water, he is baptized not in the name of Jesus. Show me where it says children are baptized, not using the household theme.

I hope the church is like a believer in that he struggles at first because of immaturity, but the more he matures in Christ, the more he becomes the reflection of Christ.

And let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Honestly, I don’t know what to believe. However, it is irrelevant, because the Shroud is not part of the Catholic Teaching.

I don’t think it is “silly” to wish it so, though. It is only natural for people to want evidence. For example, we want you to provide evidence, from the early fathers that your perception is part of what God revealed to the Church. It is only natural for us to want this, since you seem to make up your ideas about Christianity as you go along, then tell us that your ideas are revealed to you by the HS.

2 Corinthians 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.

 

[Hisalone]

Certainly I have prayed in tongues, unknown tougues. This tongue is aquired when a man is baptized in the HS. This is not to be mistaken with the gift of tongues for the edification of the church. This tongue is for the personal prayer life of the believer.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Jude1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

The major difference in praying in an unknown tongue and the gift of tongue is this.

When we pray in tongues in our personal prayer life, the HS prays through us to God, doing what we cannot do, pray the perfect prayer.

The gift of tongues is God speaking through the HS to the church. This tongue is always followed by interpretation.

Great explanation.

 

[BRB1]

This tongue is aquired when a man is baptized in the HS. This is not to be mistaken with the gift of tongues for the edification of the church. This tongue is for the personal prayer life of the believer.

The major difference in praying in an unknown tongue and the gift of tongue is this.

When we pray in tongues in our personal prayer life, the HS prays through us to God, doing what we cannot do, pray the perfect prayer.

The gift of tongues is God speaking through the HS to the church. This tongue is always followed by interpretation.

So, you describe two types of tongues —

A common one, that accompanies all sincere personal prayer. And another more demonstrative ‘foreign’ language form …that is the lesser of the spritual gifts, must be interpreted, and was the tongue Paul refers to ?

 

[heiscominginthe]

Great explanation.

Thank you brother, yet more so thank the Holy Spirit of God, for all truth comes by way of the Holy Spirit and God deserves all the glory. Praise God.

And may the Lord bless you, for you are of that spirit of truth, tasting the goodness of God. For you recognize that which comes by way of God though the unction of the Holy Spirit.

 

[heiscominginthe]

So, you describe two types of tongues —

A common one, that accompanies all sincere personal prayer. And another more demonstrative ‘foreign’ language form …that is the lesser of the spritual gifts, must be interpreted, and was the tongue Paul refers to ?

What you call common is what? My english tongue? No, this is not what is known as the unknown tongue.

My personal prayer tongue comes in a tongue that I do not understand or know. It is not a foreign language or mine own tongue of english. It is what scripture calls an unknown tongue or what Paul refers to tongues of angels.

Now, the gift of tongues can be a foreign language or an unknown tongue, but it always comes with interpretation, for it is to edify the church. So whether the tongue is a foreign or unknown tongue, it is to only happen in church and only if there is an interpretor.

 

[BRB1]

What you call common is what? My english tongue? No, this is not what is known as the unknown tongue.

My personal prayer tongue comes in a tongue that I do not understand or know. It is not a foreign language or mine own tongue of english. It is what scripture calls an unknown tongue or what Paul refers to tongues of angels.

Now, the gift of tongues can be a foreign language or an unknown tongue, but it always comes with interpretation, for it is to edify the church. So whether the tongue is a foreign or unknown tongue, it is to only happen in church and only if there is an interpretor.

So … when you pray in private, your words are gibberish ? You don’t understand what you are muttering ?

So you think this is what Paul refers to as ‘tongues of angels’ ?

 

[heiscominginthe]

So … when you pray in private, your words are gibberish ? You don’t understand what you are muttering ?

So you think this is what Paul refers to as ‘tongues of angels’ ?

I don’t think I would call my prayer tongue gibberish. It is called the unknown tongue and I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to as though I speak with tongues of angels.

Let me ask you this. If a person is speaking a foreign language near you, and you do not know what they are saying, is that also gibberish to you?

I believe unknown tongue comes by way of the Holy Spirit, and is not of this world. The man is ignorant of what he prays and he does so by faith, believing what the Word of God says in that the Holy Spirit searches the heart of the man and prays for his future needs that will help him in his walk of faith.

 

[rtconstant]

I don’t think I would call my prayer tongue gibberish. It is called the unknown tongue and I believe that is exactly what Paul was referring to as though I speak with tongues of angels.

Let me ask you this. If a person is speaking a foreign language near you, and you do not know what they are saying, is that also gibberish to you?

I believe unknown tongue comes by way of the Holy Spirit, and is not of this world. The man is ignorant of what he prays and he does so by faith, believing what the Word of God says in that the Holy Spirit searches the heart of the man and prays for his future needs that will help him in his walk of faith.

Yes but foreign language is a real language.

The whole idea of “unknown” tongues was developed as a consequence of disappointment from the Azuza St. revivals. When the “gift of tongues” became associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit at that revival the assumption was that these tongues were foreign languages as per the Biblical standard. In fact mission fields were chosen for believers based on which language they were supposed to be speaking. However when these missionaries went into their specified areas no one understood them. So instead of taking the logical route that maybe just maybe they’d all gotten a little carried away, they then just assumed that it must be an “unknown” tongue, and of course proceeded to find verses to match this idea in the Bible.

A book that discusses this and other modern theological movements is The Modern Theologians by David Ford and Rachel Muers.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I was just talking in tongues this AM I was putting up a pitcher and hit my finger, boy was I talking in tongues

 

[heiscominginthe]

Yes but foreign language is a real language.

The whole idea of “unknown” tongues was developed as a consequence of disappointment from the Azuza St. revivals. When the “gift of tongues” became associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit at that revival the assumption was that these tongues were foreign languages as per the Biblical standard. In fact mission fields were chosen for believers based on which language they were supposed to be speaking. However when these missionaries went into their specified areas no one understood them. So instead of taking the logical route that maybe just maybe they’d all gotten a little carried away, they then just assumed that it must be an “unknown” tongue, and of course proceeded to find verses to match this idea in the Bible.

A book that discusses this and other modern theological movements is The Modern Theologians by David Ford and Rachel Muers.

I take it you don’t pray in the spirit or unknown tongue. Do I think you may not be a christian because you don’t, No.

As I said, speaking in tongues is a step in faith. All who have received the baptism of the HS have the ability to do so. Yet, lack of faith and or understanding is the reason why.

So let me ask you this, since it seems you are skeptical about praying in the HS in tongues. Is tongues of God or of satan?

 

[heiscominginthe]

I was just talking in tongues this AM I was putting up a pitcher and hit my finger, boy was I talking in tongues

Are you mocking the HS Bill or was this just you being silly?

 

[rtconstant]

I take it you don’t pray in the spirit or unknown tongue. Do I think you may not be a christian because you don’t, No.

As I said, speaking in tongues is a step in faith. All who have received the baptism of the HS have the ability to do so. Yet, lack of faith and or understanding is the reason why.

So let me ask you this, since it seems you are skeptical about praying in the HS in tongues. Is tongues of God or of satan?

The gift of being able to spread the Gospel through use of the Holy Spirit to people who normally wouldn’t understand you, which is known as “Tongues” is certainly of God.

If you’re talking about sounds made while in a state of excitement which no one understands, I think its mostly innocent, if mistaken. Now when you see someone doing this and it being interpreted for self gain, then it is of Satan.

 

[guanophore]

Just as a man comes to salvation through faith, to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is itself a step in faith.

When a man is born again, his sinful nature is destroyed and he aquires a new nature in Christ. Christ lives in the heart of the man. To have Christ in your heart is to have the HS in the heart.

No, heis. You have been misinformed. If this were true, Paul would never have written Chap. 7 of Romans!

We must ask ourselves, were the apostles born again prior to the day of Pentecost? Certainly they were. How could they not be? So here are the apostles awaiting the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostles have already been made clean/holy by Christ washing away their sins. So they have been made clean through the Holy Spirit, through Christ. Now comes the baptism when they are filled, overfilled with the Holy Spirit of God.

So please understand that the HS of God cannot enter a man that is unclean. That is why a man must be made clean first.

For new wine cannot be put into an old wine sack, for it will burst. New wine must be put in a new wine sack so both will be preserved.

This part is Catholic. Jesus cleansed the Apostles prior to Pentecost by His Word.

 

[guanophore]

Just as a man comes to salvation through faith, to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is itself a step in faith.

When a man is born again, his sinful nature is destroyed and he aquires a new nature in Christ. Christ lives in the heart of the man. To have Christ in your heart is to have the HS in the heart.

No, heis. You have been misinformed. If this were true, Paul would never have written Chap. 7 of Romans!

We must ask ourselves, were the apostles born again prior to the day of Pentecost? Certainly they were. How could they not be? So here are the apostles awaiting the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostles have already been made clean/holy by Christ washing away their sins. So they have been made clean through the Holy Spirit, through Christ. Now comes the baptism when they are filled, overfilled with the Holy Spirit of God.

So please understand that the HS of God cannot enter a man that is unclean. That is why a man must be made clean first.

For new wine cannot be put into an old wine sack, for it will burst. New wine must be put in a new wine sack so both will be preserved.

This part is Catholic. Jesus cleansed the Apostles prior to Pentecost by His Word.

I believe I already have in a prior post, but I don’t believe they were forced. I believe they interpretation is what is in question, but not on all things. As I said before, if one word is changed, it can change much.

The reason why any agreed what was pushed by the CC was because of being either cast out of the church, or tortured, or killed. For a very long time, men lived in fear from the CC. There was a multitude of saints over the centuries that were martyred because of disagreeing with the CC.** Yet, fear and intimidation was the tools used by the CC to prevent disagreements in their church. **

If someone disagrees with my stand in the faith, I am not going to beat him until he submits to my interpretation.

You are asserting that the Catholic Church “beats into submission” people who disagree.

Intimidation is a form of force, heis. When you say that the Catholic Church coerced or intimidated people, that means use of force. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that people can only come to faith through a free act of the will.

And you would then believe?

If you could provide any historical evidence at all for your theory that the Church founded by Christ (Catholic) apostasized in the first 300 years, then I would have to give your theory some consideration. As it is, you are just spouting anti-Catholic propoganda that has no basis in history at all.

No, we are talking about what was written of the apostles and the traditions of the CC. If a tradition of the CC is not scriptural, then I will not accept it

What you don’t seem to realize, heis, is that your entire Bible is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. The NT was written completely out of the Sacred Traditions that Jesus committed to the Apostles.

Show me where the apostles where the apostles taught there are not three baptisms in scripture.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Show me where it says a man is not saved by faith alone.

James 2:24
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Show me where it says that when a man is baptized in water, he is baptized not in the name of Jesus.

Matt 28:19-20
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Show me where it says children are baptized, not using the household theme.

Sorry, heis. We will not be able to prove that households do not contain infants and children.

Jesus Himself was a member of a household when He was an infant and child.

  I hope the church is like a believer in that he struggles at first because of immaturity, but the more he matures in Christ, the more he becomes the reflection of Christ.

No, heis. The Church is the pure and unspotted Bride of Christ. She is perfect because she has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her Soul. The Church does not err because of these divine elements.

 

[guanophore]

So … when you pray in private, your words are gibberish ? You don’t understand what you are muttering ?

So you think this is what Paul refers to as ‘tongues of angels’ ?

No, BRB1. The unknown tongue, or tongues of angels is not “gibberish”. The fact that others cannot understand it does not make it gibberish. It is an expression of the HS through the believer, for the purpose of building up the believer.

It is very arrogant to make the assumption that anything we cannot understand is “gibberish”. When I am with the Native persons that live in my region, they speak a language I do not understand, but I do not assume it is “gibberish”. What hubris!

 

[guanophore]

Yes but foreign language is a real language.

The whole idea of “unknown” tongues was developed as a consequence of disappointment from the Azuza St. revivals. When the “gift of tongues” became associated with the coming of the Holy Spirit at that revival the assumption was that these tongues were foreign languages as per the Biblical standard.

What you say about the pentecostal movement may be true, but that is not the “whole idea”. Speaking in unknown tongues is as old as Pentecost. Private prayer language in an unknown tongue is part of the Apostolic Teaching:

1 Cor 14:17-19
17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

When a person prays in tongues, he prays with the spirit, and the mind is unfruitful. The Spirit prays through the believer.

Paul is quite clear that he would not expect his prayer in tongues to be understood in the Church.

 

[rtconstant]

What you say about the pentecostal movement may be true, but that is not the “whole idea”. Speaking in unknown tongues is as old as Pentecost. Private prayer language in an unknown tongue is part of the Apostolic Teaching:

1 Cor 14:17-19
17 For you may give thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified. 18 I thank God that I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

When a person prays in tongues, he prays with the spirit, and the mind is unfruitful. The Spirit prays through the believer.

Paul is quite clear that he would not expect his prayer in tongues to be understood in the Church.

See to me though, I think that the ability to speak multiple languages, the spiritual gift of Speaking a language you don’t know and other scenarios get mixed together and seen as evidence of “Unknown Tongues.”

It is true that St. Paul had experiences of the Spirit praying through him but I don’t see that as being related to the experience that modern Protestants and Catholics are calling Unknown Tongues.

Usually when the Early Church Fathers speak of tongues they mean tongues of another language, and many seemed to be of a mind that it was for the spreading of the Gospel. However when we see references to broken jargon that no one understood it is usually in reference to heretics like Montanus or the Moravians.

I don’t know, as a former Evangelical I saw nothing but destructive things pour forth from the Charismatic movement. Indeed the Charismatic movement has taken the slow leak on the ship of Protestantism and has created a full fledged flooding. I’m just deeply concerned that it exists in the Church now.

 

[heiscominginthe]

The gift of being able to spread the Gospel through use of the Holy Spirit to people who normally wouldn’t understand you, which is known as “Tongues” is certainly of God.

If you’re talking about sounds made while in a state of excitement which no one understands, I think its mostly innocent, if mistaken. Now when you see someone doing this and it being interpreted for self gain, then it is of Satan.

As you said, understanding is of the HS and your understanding is lack. I am not saying you are not of that spirit of truth known as the HS, but that your maturity in the faith has not grown to this level of understanding.

The gospel is the important thing here and having it preached unto the world. Yet, are we to plant the seed and neglect the watering of the seed? Baptism of the Holy Spirit is a very helpful aid in our walk of faith. Without it, the walk of faith is a much more tedious journey and many will fall along the way.

 

[heiscominginthe]

See to me though, I think that the ability to speak multiple languages, the spiritual gift of Speaking a language you don’t know and other scenarios get mixed together and seen as evidence of “Unknown Tongues.”

It is true that St. Paul had experiences of the Spirit praying through him but I don’t see that as being related to the experience that modern Protestants and Catholics are calling Unknown Tongues.

Usually when the Early Church Fathers speak of tongues they mean tongues of another language, and many seemed to be of a mind that it was for the spreading of the Gospel. However when we see references to broken jargon that no one understood it is usually in reference to heretics like Montanus or the Moravians.

I don’t know, as a former Evangelical I saw nothing but destructive things pour forth from the Charismatic movement. Indeed the Charismatic movement has taken the slow leak on the ship of Protestantism and has created a full fledged flooding. I’m just deeply concerned that it exists in the Church now.

I previously quoted scripture that bears witness of the HS unknown tongues and I told you the difference between the personal prayer tongue and the gift of the spirit tongue. As I said, it is a step in faith and not all people will receive it.

It is the devil who does not want a believer to receive the baptism of the HS. He will lie to men telling them that this is not of God, that speaking in tongues, both unknown and the gift is evil. Yet, to believe this is bordering along the lines of blasphemy. For this is only one unforgiven sin and that is blasphemy of the HS.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Jude1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;No, heis. You have been misinformed. If this were true, Paul would never have written Chap. 7 of Romans!

Show mew how what I wrote is not consistant with Romans 7.

You are asserting that the Catholic Church “beats into submission” people who disagree.

Intimidation is a form of force, heis. When you say that the Catholic Church coerced or intimidated people, that means use of force. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches that people can only come to faith through a free act of the will.

I am asserting that there was a time in the history of the CC where torture and death and the threat of torture and death forced people to believe what they were pushing.

If you could provide any historical evidence at all for your theory that the Church founded by Christ (Catholic) apostasized in the first 300 years, then I would have to give your theory some consideration. As it is, you are just spouting anti-Catholic propoganda that has no basis in history at all.

I suggest you study your own history. Before I was to belong to a sect, I would search out, from beginning to end to discern if of God or not of God. How would I do this? By using the Word of God and seeing if the sect adds or takes away from the Word of God.

What you don’t seem to realize, heis, is that your entire Bible is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition. The NT was written completely out of the Sacred Traditions that Jesus committed to the Apostles.

Why do you attempt to steal the glory of God? We have the scriptures because of God and because of men who yielded to his spirit.

Eph 4:4-6
4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

This is what is say. You see it, and read it, but do not understand. There are three baptisms spoken of in scripture, but only one can bring us into the family of God. There is only one baptism that saves a man.

James 2:24
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Amen. Yet, what are works if not done through Christ which comes by way of faith. What good is works if a man does it hoping to earn a reward when his only thought should be helping his brother out of the love in his heart which is of Christ.

Sorry, heis. We will not be able to prove that households do not contain infants and children.

No, heis. The Church is the pure and unspotted Bride of Christ. She is perfect because she has Christ as her Head, and the HS as her Soul. The Church does not err because of these divine elements.

You mean the CC don’t you? For in your eyes, all the other churches in the world are in err?