The Instigator
CentristX
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
itsagodthing
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

"Speaking of Tongues" in church is not biblical in the way people might think it is.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
CentristX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 846 times Debate No: 66721
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

CentristX

Pro

I will be arguing that the speaking of tongues (meaning the kind displayed by Pentecostals and Evangelicals) is not in the very least biblical. Con will argue that it speaking in tongues is indeed biblical.

Round 1 is acceptance,
Round 2 is starting arguments,
Round 3 is rebuttals,
and Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions.

Please keep this debate reserved for someone who actually believes that speaking of tongues is biblical. Thanks.
itsagodthing

Con

your wrong speaking in tongues is a gift from god but several false profits lie and act like they are speaking in tongues to give credit to their gods who don't have any power cause they aren't real but the idea that they can speak in tongues makes it seem as if their god truly exists when it doesn't
Debate Round No. 1
CentristX

Pro

Once again, before I start, I will clarify that the "speaking of tongues" I'm referring to is the kind displayed by charismatic churches. Therefore, I hope that the Con understands this completely.

So it's true, Scripture does speak of speaking in tongues, but I will show that this is not in the way many think it is in.

Pentecostals and charismatics in Christianity today claim that the jibber-jabber tongues they speak in is justified in the Bible, but this "speaking of tongues" just isn't!

Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God speaks to us today through Jesus Christ, i.e., the Word of God (John 1:1-3,14; Revelation 19:13). Jesus is the living Word. The Bible is the written Word. John 1:14 teaches that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as the Son of God.

Speaking-in-tongues as done today in Pentecostal circles is similarly practiced in African pagan religions and voodoo. The gift of tongues in the Bible simply involved lost sinners hearing the gospel translated into their own language by a miracle of God. That's all it was. When Peter spoke at Pentecost, every man HEARD in his own native tongue. Peter only preached in one language, but the people HEARD in their own language.

So actually they were hearing-in-tongues at Pentecost. Sixteen known, earthly languages are listed in Acts 2:9-11. This is vastly different from the crazy mumbo-jumbo uttered in Charismatic and Assemblies of God groups today.

itsagodthing

Con

itsagodthing forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
CentristX

Pro

I plan on starting a new, private debate soon.
Debate Round No. 3
CentristX

Pro

CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
I know where Pro is leading this debate, and He is right.

Consider this verse;

John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
That is what I am trying to get at, that even when there are only a few sitting there, there must be at least two speaking the same thing and another to interpret. That is what the bible say's.

And that is what you don't see in these pentecostal churches.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
amigo.... You are right about that. After my bout with Catholicism I have never " joined" a church. We are reborn people. In the body of Christ.All I am saying is that tongues are for the believer.Just in an assembly, tongues should be given with interpretation. And in most churches I attend, they are interpreted.

There are those out there , Christians, that deny they are for the believer. Like healing. They are just lazy Christians, spiritually.Content to sit in a dry boat than jump out of the boat when Jesus said, "come".
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Now I know cheyennebodie that we both disagree with what catholics teach.

Is not a church the body of Christ?

Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

?????
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Amigo..... You are right. IN CHURCH. Not in their private places.Paul even said that he would ALL spoke in tongues. All tongues is is God's language. That is what they speak where he resides.It says that when speaking in tongues your mind becomes unfruitful, but not your spirit man. You are a spirit. You have a soul, and you live in that body. Your spirit is the real you. If YOU leave that body it will fall to the ground and start to decay. The body has no life of its own. When you leave, it has no life to continue.

I would strongly suggest that you meditate on scripture more and let it feed you the truth. When reading the word read all of it. Not just a few scriptures. And another thing, get rid of all the religious thinking you have been indoctrinated with and let God's word be your mantle of thinking. It will change everything you think you know about God. The bible actually is so simple you need help to misunderstand it.
Posted by amigodana 2 years ago
amigodana
Not to be argumentative here, but, I do have a sincere question concerning those verses.
Now yes, it says;

1 Corinthians 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."

Now, if continue on in that SAME chapter you will see this;

1 Corinthians 14:27 "If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret."

1 Corinthians 14:28 "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God."

So, it seems to me that the bible is telling us that if no one can understand it, then they need to KEEP SILENT, right?
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
My apologies Mr. Cheyennebodie..

Con, I hope you know how easy this debate should be to win.
1 Corinthians 12; 13; and 14 explain tongues in great detail.
Its a language of angels.
He who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, but to God.
Much more in Corinthians.
Posted by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
I mean speaking in tongues the way the Pentecostals and other charismatic denominations do. If this is the kind of blabbering that cheyennebodie is trying to argue for, I suggest he just accept the debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
centrix.... 1 Corinthians 14:2.Now I suggest you actually read and study scriptures before you take on a subject.You should have recognized that when I posted it like yoshidino did.

yoshifino.. I am actually a 66 year old male.My post name is a TV character from the 50's.Clint Walker.
Posted by yoshidino 2 years ago
yoshidino
CentristX, She did use scripture. Her first line is a scripture.
And do you just mean speaking in tongues the way Pentecostals blabber it, or do you mean speaking in tongues period. Depending on your response, I may take the challenge..
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
CentristXitsagodthingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con posted in the acceptance round and then forfeited later on. Bad conduct. Pro's argument went uncontested, so him/her wins arguments based on that. Con's S&G was borderline for losing those points, but I don't think it was horrendous enough that it distracted too much from what was being said.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
CentristXitsagodthingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both forfeited rounds in this debate. S&G - Pro. Con had several grammatical errors including failing to capitalize words accordingly. Pro had no such errors, and thus wins these points. Arguments - Pro. I'm not really sure what happened here. Con failed to rebut any of the arguments Pro raised in R2. Instead of picking it back up, he just typed in 'cool', I'm assuming because Pro planned on restarting the debate, I'm not sure. Regardless, Pro's arguments were left standing unchallenged by Con. Thus, Pro wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate aside from biblical scripture which was simply quoted and not cited as a reference with source links.