OUR PATTERN FOR SALVATION

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Acts 2:4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
They were speaking in tongues and tongues was another language.
I have heard churches speak in tongues...it is gibberish, not a real language. There was no one to interpret as commanded in 1 Corinthians 14:27, was there in your church?
So, your church can not claim all the signs in Mark 16:17-18...some does not fulfill the text...so Mark 16:16 is misapplied.
No doubt the church speaks their own language...that is not speaking in another's language.
Fact is, no church can claim all these signs because Mark 16:16 was given only to Peter and the disciples and was not yet fulfilled...their "great commission" was interrupted with this dispensation of grace and will resume in the future tribulation....trying to apply this today, to the church in this dispensation, is at best error.

When it comes to tongues as Charismatics understand them the jury is out as far as I am concerned. There seem to be arguments in both directions.

However Acts 2:2-6 doesn't actually say the apostles spoke other languages.
Acts 2:4 says they spoke "other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance".
Whereas Acts 2:6 says "each one heard them speaking in his own language".
The miracle could be that they heard them speaking their own language even though they weren't.

Tongues in Acts 2:4 is G1100 - glossa
Whereas languages in Acts 2:6 is two words G1268 & G2980, literally vernacular speaking.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I, out of curiosity looked up #3588 and yes it can be translated as the....BUT, it can also be translated that.
"can be" translated the?
According to Strong the is the normal.
Translating it as that is an abberation.

You seem to rely to much on the KJV which is not a good translation IMO.
 

Doug

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2018
1,452
327
83
south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
When it comes to tongues as Charismatics understand them the jury is out as far as I am concerned. There seem to be arguments in both directions.

However Acts 2:2-6 doesn't actually say the apostles spoke other languages.
Acts 2:4 says they spoke "other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance".
Whereas Acts 2:6 says "each one heard them speaking in his own language".
The miracle could be that they heard them speaking their own language even though they weren't.

Tongues in Acts 2:4 is G1100 - glossa
Whereas languages in Acts 2:6 is two words G1268 & G2980, literally vernacular speaking.
Paul spoke about tongues and in 1 Corinthians 14:27 and said there should be one to interpret....it seems to me that those speaking in tongues were speaking a specific language that could be understood by the interpreter, but not other people as it was not their language.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Paul spoke about tongues and in 1 Corinthians 14:27 and said there should be one to interpret....it seems to me that those speaking in tongues were speaking a specific language that could be understood by the interpreter, but not other people as it was not their language.

Well that is one way of looking at it.
Another way is for someone to have the gift of interpretation of (non specific language) tongues (1Cor 12:10).
However I'm not going to get involved in that any more.

It seems this whole discussion has run it's course so I will leave it there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doug

Doug

Well-Known Member
Apr 29, 2018
1,452
327
83
south
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well that is one way of looking at it.
Another way is for someone to have the gift of interpretation of (non specific language) tongues (1Cor 12:10).
However I'm not going to get involved in that any more.

It seems this whole discussion has run it's course so I will leave it there.
Last point I will make is, I see the need of an interpreter in regards to tongues. I did not witness one in my limited exposure and would question the claim of speaking in tongues on this basis alone. As stated, I do not see the ability for any church to claim this as a sign to satisfy Mark 16:17-18.