The Administration Of Tongues

Biblicist · Jul 1, 2015

emekrus said:
Ok I get it now folks, so I think the right way to go about it, is if we are praying, singing and thanking in tongues in Church (especially where the unlearned is) we should do it silently in order not to distract isn't it?

I agree with Hillsage that ‘silence’ can mean ‘quietly’ but with some qualification. In 1Cor 14:28, 30 Paul does use the Greek work sigao (silence) twice which speaks of complete silence but if we sing so quietly that no one else can hear, which can be very easy to do during times of praise and worship in a large vibrant church in particular, then we do not run the risk of unsettling the unsaved or cessationist visitor. But I doubt if Paul was showing any concerns for a Believers prayer meeting that was being held in a home or even within a small home group, providing that we were absolutely sure that there were no unsaved or cessationist visitors present.

Now I cannot speak for the Full Gospel church in Nigeria, but when we travel through many western congregations that were established from the beginning to be Full Gospel, when we combine our western emphasis with self-identity where our times of congregational worship can essentially be “me and the Lord” in contrast to there being one congregation/people worshipping before the Lord, then there is a tendency to ignore (or maybe not comprehend) Pauls strong words that we are not to permit uninterpreted tongues in our congregational meetings.

When you travel around charismatic congregations that are part of a historical denomination, we are more likely to encounter a greater awareness on the part of these people that there would be members/visitors in their midst who do not understand the things of the Spirit, so this type of congregation will be more inclined to be open to Paul’s admonitions.

Even though our western mindset is probably overly focused on self, where we perceive that our need for self-gratification overrides that of the local Christian assembly, I can understand that when we are new in the Lord, where we become a part of a local assembly, that it can be easy to uncritically accept the prevailing view on any given matter.

If you say yes, what if I'm led in my spirit to pray out loud in the church, should I quench the Spirit? (I think this another error too)

Contrary to populist opinion, I strongly doubt if anyone has ever been led by the Spirit to speak a word in a tongue to the Lord. This misconception has probably been built upon another misconception that suggests that the Holy Spirit will speak a word to the congregation which is reflected in the populist view that tongues + interpretation = prophecy but this is in stark opposition to 1Cor 14:2

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

I doubt that any of us need to be led by the Spirit not to inappropriately stand up during the middle of a message and offer words of praise to the Father in tongues or when we are sitting in a packed train etc. The same goes for the congregational meeting where the Scriptures permit three prophecies and three tongues/interpretations, if we are inclined to prophesy then that’s up to the prophet and when he/she hears someone else speaking they will know from 1Cor 14:29-31 that they are to wait for an appropriate time where the prophet is to indicate that he/she also has a word/message from the Spirit. Even though Paul has given us a protocol to follow, it seems that we generally tend to wait until someone has finished, but this does not appear to be what Paul had in mind.

When it comes to “quenching the Spirit”, as the content of a congregational tongue is without exception always based on words of praise and adoration which are directed to the Father and not man, all it takes for someone to stand up and speak words of praise to the Father is by choosing to do so and no more.

Paul does say that the speaker is to pray for an interpretation/articulation and if the person who offers the tongue (or with another who is nearby) decides to provide an interpretation/articulation that this would certainly be deemed to be doing so in response to the leading/confirmation of the Spirit.

Hillsage · Jul 1, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
Contrary to populist opinion, I strongly doubt if anyone has ever been led by the Spirit to speak a word in a tongue to the Lord. This misconception has probably been built upon another misconception that suggests that the Holy Spirit will speak a word to the congregation which is reflected in the populist view that tongues + interpretation = prophecy but this is in stark opposition to 1Cor 14:2

For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries.

I don't know what the populist opinion is, but I do believe that 14:2 is speaking about your spirit speaking to God. Whereas 14:5 is speaking about The Spirit speaking through you and the interpretation is coming from The Spirit through someone else.

1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Herein is the confirmation IMO that tongues/interpretation is = to prophesy. Apparently you disagree. Why?

I think another important thing should be noted in this verse. Paul wished everyone WOULD speak in tongues and not that everyone COULD. I wish the same for everyone today also. :amen:

Biblicist · Jul 2, 2015

Hillsage said:
I don't know what the populist opinion is,

That’s a way of saying that even though a particular belief or set of beliefs is held by a lot of people (the majority), that the position might be popular but that it might not have been all that well thought through. It contains the suggestion that the ‘populist’ opinion might stand in opposition to those who are deemed to be experts within the field being discussed.

...but I do believe that 14:2 is speaking about your spirit speaking to God. Whereas 14:5 is speaking about The Spirit speaking through you and the interpretation is coming from The Spirit through someone else.

I would see both being the same where the Holy Spirit is the agent. The following two brief excerpts might help.

1. Fee, First Corinthians (1987) p.670

As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.” On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of 12:7-11 and 14:2 and 16, that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration. The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance.19 Hence, “my S/spirit prays.”

Footnote:
19Cf. the language of Acts 2:4: “They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (RSV). This is not far removed from, but seems to be a preferable way of stating, the alternative favored by Barrett, 320, and others, that “my spirit is the spiritual gift entrusted to me.”

Barrett’s solution is certainly attractive where I wonder just how much it differs from Fee’s.

2. Soards, 1 Corinthians (1999) p.282

“In setting the word spirit with a lower case “s” and in rendering the phrase “with his spirit” rather than “in the spirit,” the NIV interprets Paul’s use of the word (Gk. Pneuma) to refer to the spirit of the human speaker. This reading is possible, perhaps correct; yet, Paul’s ambiguous phrase in Gk. Contains the possibility that Paul meant to indicate that a tongue speaker spoke “in the Spirit of God,” so that the unintelligibility of the speaking was because of the divine origin of the language. A final decision for this question of translation is impossible and not crucial for grasping the basic sense of Paul’s statement”.

The NIV translation committee may not have had a supposed human spirit in mind where they may have simply decided to follow the safer option by keeping to the tradition of our English Bibles; the Common English Bible (2011) decided to go for ‘Spirit’. Even though Fee’s solution with ‘S/spirit’ would have undoubtedly been discussed by the NIV (and other) translation committees, I wonder how they could have translated it back into English?

1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues, unless some one interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Herein is the confirmation IMO that tongues/interpretation is = to prophesy. Apparently you disagree. Why?

The edification that Paul is speaking about is fairly rudimentary in that all he is saying is that those who heard us speaking in the Spirit, that they would at least know what was being said to the Father. In 14:6 Paul contrasts the content of a tongue which has no value with ‘revelation, knowledge, prophecy or teaching’ which makes sense as tongues are always directed toward the Father and that the words the Spirit speaks to the Father are words of praise and adoration (Acts 2:11; 1Cor 14:15-16).

As we have no evidence from within the Scriptures that the Spirit has even spoken to a congregation or an individual along the lines of tongues + interpretation = prophecy, this means that we need to follow Pauls statement in 14:2 “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God…”

Now you could postulate that when the Spirit is speaking to the Father that God is somehow speaking to himself, where the Spirit has to then provide an interpretation/articulation to the congregation, which is an interpretation of the word that he spoke to the Father – it simply makes no sense.

I think another important thing should be noted in this verse. Paul wished everyone WOULD speak in tongues and not that everyone COULD. I wish the same for everyone today also.

I agree. As for “not everyone COULD”, 1Cor 12:28 which says ‘All do not speak in tongues…” is making reference to how not all will CHOOSE to speak a word of praise to the Father within the congregational setting. This does not mean that they will not spend a lot of time praising and praying to God in the Spirit during their own times of devotion, as some may prefer to prophesy to the congregation and not speak praises to the Lord in tongues.

Imagican · Jul 2, 2015

I offer that EVERY example offered throughout the ENTIRE Bible, where the CHOICE was left 'up to the people', the people made the WRONG choices.
It's NOT about 'majority rules' in FOLLOWING Christ. It's not about majority OVERRULES scripture. At least not in the TRUE 'Church': Body of Christ.
Yet that is what I have seen prevalent here on this topic. "I believe", "I think", as if this subject is SUBJECTIVE to one's thoughts or OWN desires.
And that leads BACK to the point of 'self edification'. That is EXACTLY the manner in which CHILDREN behave. Unable to understand consequence, they choose to DO that which brings them SELF edification. That which is PLEASING to themselves without regard to OTHERS.
Yet we, as followers, have been instructed to PUT AWAY such 'childish behavior' and GROW UP in Christ. And in order to DO so, it is MANDATORY that one LEARN to sacrifice what PLEASES oneself for the SAKE of OTHERS.
Do you HONESTLY believe that there are angels in heaven speaking to God in INCOHERENT NOISE? Gibberish? Do you honestly believe that the angels are DEVOID of the Holy Spirit?
The Bible speaks of NO OTHER 'tongues' than those that are LANGUAGES. While you can MAKE UP whatever you choose to believe, the TRUTH is, if you openly and honestly READ the Bible with the intent to understand instead of justify, you will CLEARLY SEE that there is NO use of the word 'tongues' in reference to GIBBERISH. Every usage of the term is in reference to LANGUAGES.
Paul's statement concerning 'tongues' of angels if FIGURATIVE. He could have used a BILLION different references to DOING something being fruitless where love isn't present. Since the discussion was on tongues, he used THAT example. It was not meant to be taken literal for it is OBVIOUS that Paul NEVER spoke without LOVE being present. Or, if he did, he plainly illustrated that it was an INCORRECT manner of communication. So he could have said, "What if I could fly around the world and feed the hungry......" or "What if I could snap my fingers and produce water...........". It's not meant that HE CAN do these things. It is simply a means of illustrating that doing ANYTHING without the purpose being LOVE is FRUITLESS. Metaphor, symbolism, allusion, whatever you choose to call it it is OBVIOUS that it's not meant to be taken LITERAL for it's OBVIOUS that the illustration is NOT the manner in which Paul acted.
Paul INSISTED that those in Corinth START focusing on the edification of the BODY. Then expresses that 'speaking in tongues' is SELF edification. That in and of itself SHOULD be enough understand for ANYONE to clearly see that Paul is DISCOURAGING the DESIRE to speak in tongues and ENCOURAGING the practice of offering that which brings edification to the BODY. Anyone denying this is choosing a path contrary to true understanding.
One, two or no MORE than three in a gathering, and by course, (in order. He even emphasizes later that ALL things are to be done IN ORDER), and there MUST BE AN INTERPRETER. So this STATES that it is UTTERLY impossible for the Spirit to give utterance to ANY 'tongues' that do NOT conform to these RULES that Paul STATES are the commandments of GOD. Women are to remain SILENT, (doesn't say mumble quietLY, it says SILENT. That means WITHOUT SOUND. Yet some of you "THINK" it means something DIFFERENT. WHY? Because of seeking SELF EDIFICATION placed AHEAD of the TRUTH. The words are PLAIN and perfectly CLEAR. Yet some of you have openly STATED that YOU believe it means something DIFFERENT than what is PLAIN and CLEARLY defined.
And if the 'tongues' you are FALSELY using IN the Body are the SAME as those you use PRIVATELY, it is then OBVIOUS that those being used PRIVATELY are NO different than the ones used in the BODY: FALSE tongues. An ATTEMPT to bring about self edification even after being instructed NOT TO.
Blessings,
MEC

Biblicist · Jul 2, 2015

Imagican said:
I offer that EVERY example offered throughout the ENTIRE Bible, where the CHOICE was left 'up to the people', the people made the WRONG choices.
It's NOT about 'majority rules' in FOLLOWING Christ. It's not about majority OVERRULES scripture. At least not in the TRUE 'Church': Body of Christ.
Yet that is what I have seen prevalent here on this topic. "I believe", "I think", as if this subject is SUBJECTIVE to one's thoughts or OWN desires.
And that leads BACK to the point of 'self edification'. That is EXACTLY the manner in which CHILDREN behave. Unable to understand consequence, they choose to DO that which brings them SELF edification. That which is PLEASING to themselves without regard to OTHERS.
Yet we, as followers, have been instructed to PUT AWAY such 'childish behavior' and GROW UP in Christ. And in order to DO so, it is MANDATORY that one LEARN to sacrifice what PLEASES oneself for the SAKE of OTHERS.
Do you HONESTLY believe that there are angels in heaven speaking to God in INCOHERENT NOISE? Gibberish? Do you honestly believe that the angels are DEVOID of the Holy Spirit?
The Bible speaks of NO OTHER 'tongues' than those that are LANGUAGES. While you can MAKE UP whatever you choose to believe, the TRUTH is, if you openly and honestly READ the Bible with the intent to understand instead of justify, you will CLEARLY SEE that there is NO use of the word 'tongues' in reference to GIBBERISH. Every usage of the term is in reference to LANGUAGES.
Paul's statement concerning 'tongues' of angels if FIGURATIVE. He could have used a BILLION different references to DOING something being fruitless where love isn't present. Since the discussion was on tongues, he used THAT example. It was not meant to be taken literal for it is OBVIOUS that Paul NEVER spoke without LOVE being present. Or, if he did, he plainly illustrated that it was an INCORRECT manner of communication. So he could have said, "What if I could fly around the world and feed the hungry......" or "What if I could snap my fingers and produce water...........". It's not meant that HE CAN do these things. It is simply a means of illustrating that doing ANYTHING without the purpose being LOVE is FRUITLESS. Metaphor, symbolism, allusion, whatever you choose to call it it is OBVIOUS that it's not meant to be taken LITERAL for it's OBVIOUS that the illustration is NOT the manner in which Paul acted.
Paul INSISTED that those in Corinth START focusing on the edification of the BODY. Then expresses that 'speaking in tongues' is SELF edification. That in and of itself SHOULD be enough understand for ANYONE to clearly see that Paul is DISCOURAGING the DESIRE to speak in tongues and ENCOURAGING the practice of offering that which brings edification to the BODY. Anyone denying this is choosing a path contrary to true understanding.
One, two or no MORE than three in a gathering, and by course, (in order. He even emphasizes later that ALL things are to be done IN ORDER), and there MUST BE AN INTERPRETER. So this STATES that it is UTTERLY impossible for the Spirit to give utterance to ANY 'tongues' that do NOT conform to these RULES that Paul STATES are the commandments of GOD. Women are to remain SILENT, (doesn't say mumble quietLY, it says SILENT. That means WITHOUT SOUND. Yet some of you "THINK" it means something DIFFERENT. WHY? Because of seeking SELF EDIFICATION placed AHEAD of the TRUTH. The words are PLAIN and perfectly CLEAR. Yet some of you have openly STATED that YOU believe it means something DIFFERENT than what is PLAIN and CLEARLY defined.
And if the 'tongues' you are FALSELY using IN the Body are the SAME as those you use PRIVATELY, it is then OBVIOUS that those being used PRIVATELY are NO different than the ones used in the BODY: FALSE tongues. An ATTEMPT to bring about self edification even after being instructed NOT TO.
Blessings,
MEC

Okay.

Hillsage · Jul 2, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
That’s a way of saying that even though a particular belief or set of beliefs is held by a lot of people (the majority), that the position might be popular but that it might not have been all that well thought through. It contains the suggestion that the ‘populist’ opinion might stand in opposition to those who are deemed to be experts within the field being discussed.

Goes to show an ole dog can still learn new 'things'.

I would see both being the same where the Holy Spirit is the agent. The following two brief excerpts might help.

1. Fee, First Corinthians (1987) p.670

As suggested before, in the present context the difficult wording “my spirit prays” seems to mean something like “my S/spirit prays.” On the one hand, both the possessive “my” and the contrast with “my mind” indicate that he is here referring to his own “spirit” at prayer. On the other hand, there can be little question, on the basis of the combined evidence of 12:7-11 and 14:2 and 16, that Paul understood speaking in tongues to be an activity of the Spirit in one’s life; it is prayer and praise directed toward God in the language of Spirit-inspiration. The most viable solution to this ambiguity is that by the language “my spirit prays” Paul means his own spirit is praying as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance.19 Hence, “my S/spirit prays.”

Footnote:
19Cf. the language of Acts 2:4: “They began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance” (RSV). This is not far removed from, but seems to be a preferable way of stating, the alternative favored by Barrett, 320, and others, that “my spirit is the spiritual gift entrusted to me.”

Barrett’s solution is certainly attractive where I wonder just how much it differs from Fee’s.

I personally believe that the baptism of the Spirit is much like the doctor swatting your butt subsequent to helping you get born. And in the same way 'that' Doctor helps initiate the 'utterance' of a child crying. We are all born mute spiritually speaking, and obviously most in the church today still are. I know that analogy is not bible, but it works for me. I say that because I believe it is 'my spirit' that has/forms the spiritual vocabulary that utters forth from my body. I don't believe it is the Holy Spirit speaking.

2. Soards, 1 Corinthians (1999) p.282

“In setting the word spirit with a lower case “s” and in rendering the phrase “with his spirit” rather than “in the spirit,” the NIV interprets Paul’s use of the word (Gk. Pneuma) to refer to the spirit of the human speaker. This reading is possible, perhaps correct; yet, Paul’s ambiguous phrase in Gk. Contains the possibility that Paul meant to indicate that a tongue speaker spoke “in the Spirit of God,” so that the unintelligibility of the speaking was because of the divine origin of the language. A final decision for this question of translation is impossible and not crucial for grasping the basic sense of Paul’s statement”.

The NIV translation committee may not have had a supposed human spirit in mind where they may have simply decided to follow the safer option by keeping to the tradition of our English Bibles; the Common English Bible (2011) decided to go for ‘Spirit’. Even though Fee’s solution with ‘S/spirit’ would have undoubtedly been discussed by the NIV (and other) translation committees, I wonder how they could have translated it back into English?[/quote] Like I may have said before; I have a bit of a problem with men translating the bible who are not Spirit baptized to begin with. That simply makes their 'text with the wrong context a pretext' translation. Mental giants they may be, but they lack what only a charismatic experience can supply in translation IMO.

The edification that Paul is speaking about is fairly rudimentary in that all he is saying is that those who heard us speaking in the Spirit, that they would at least know what was being said to the Father. In 14:6 Paul contrasts the content of a tongue which has no value with ‘revelation, knowledge, prophecy or teaching’ which makes sense as tongues are always directed toward the Father and that the words the Spirit speaks to the Father are words of praise and adoration (Acts 2:11; 1Cor 14:15-16).

1CO 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with (prayer) tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

I again believe this is talking about your spirit, and the only way you will get revelation/knowledge/prophysey/teaching type information out of that tongue is if you 'pray for an interpretation' as verse 13 mentions.

1CO 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown (prayer) tongue pray that he may interpret.

As we have no evidence from within the Scriptures that the Spirit has even spoken to a congregation or an individual along the lines of tongues + interpretation = prophecy, this means that we need to follow Pauls statement in 14:2 “For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God…”

But that's because 14:2 is also speaking about and dealing with the tongue of our spirit where, even the translators, got this one right by not capitalizing IMO.

1CO 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 (prayer tongues).

Now you could postulate that when the Spirit is speaking to the Father that God is somehow speaking to himself, where the Spirit has to then provide an interpretation/articulation to the congregation, which is an interpretation of the word that he spoke to the Father – it simply makes no sense.

I can't "postulate" that POV either and agree with you that it makes no sense.

I agree. As for “not everyone COULD”, 1Cor 12:28 which says ‘All do not speak in tongues…” is making reference to how not all will CHOOSE to speak a word of praise to the Father within the congregational setting. This does not mean that they will not spend a lot of time praising and praying to God in the Spirit during their own times of devotion, as some may prefer to prophesy to the congregation and not speak praises to the Lord in tongues.

You may not be seeing this "reference to how" quite like I do. I believe Paul is saying they had too had people who never received the baptism back then, just like we do now. Probably not as prevalent but still an obvious scriptural issue IMO. So the reason they 'could not' speak in a tongue was not because they didn't 'choose' to....they simply couldn't. They couldn't 'do so' anymore than those today who aren't Spirit baptized and therefore having a spirit language for their spirit to begin with.

emekrus · Jul 3, 2015

A few days back, I decided to open-heartedly re-read the scripture that talks about Tongues in detail(1Corinthians14). And while I did that, I believed the Holy Spirit to help me with revelation (I believe I have the Holy Spirit In me; and he always guides me into all truth). And I know he did.
And here is what I got, And I want you to judge the revelation...

As I carefully studied, I found out that the Apostle Paul's admonition concerning the administration of Tongues, was from two perspective. One perspective, talks about speaking in Tongues for the sake of edification the Church ( or Call it the congregation). The the second, perspective, talks about worshiping with Tongues in the Church.

Now from what I saw, as a Preacher, Teacher, Prophet (or any Church public figure) speaking in Tongues in the first perspective needs Interpretation. Either by a third party, or the speaker (himself). For the sake of edification of the Church. Hence he says, He that speaks in an unknown Tongue, let him also pray that he interpret.

Then he also gave an alternative, if tongues is to be administered, let them be three and let one interpret.

Then for the second perspective-worshiping. That is Praying, Singing, and thanking in Tongue-as a minister, does not require interpretation. A minister, in the process of leading worship,(i.e is Prayer, Song and Thanksgiving) in the Church, may decide to be leading in Tongues ( while the rest people in the congregation are worshiping as they are led). Under this condition, he(the minister) is not required to interpret his own prayer, but rather, he is also to interject with understanding(articulation) in order to avoid confusion from the audience.

To this end he, says; "Therefore, I will Pray in the Spirit, then I will Pray in understanding".

Now another thing is noteworthy here, for the skeptics who say tongues oft not to be done willingly but spontaneously. Please mark the phrase "I will". Which is to say, praying,singing and thanking in Tongues can be done willingly as much as praying, singing and thanking in understanding (normal language) can also be done willingly.

I'm open-hearted to hear your Spiritual and Scriptural Judgement.

Emeke

Imagican · Jul 3, 2015

Hillsage said:
Goes to show an ole dog can still learn new 'things'.

Or how about the instruction that we follow the traditions and doctrines delivered by the apostles and refuse to create our OWN based on our FEELINGS or THOUGHTS that have nothing to do with the TRUTH? And the saying uses the word 'TRICKS', not 'things'.

I personally believe that the baptism of the Spirit is much like the doctor swatting your butt subsequent to helping you get born. And in the same way 'that' Doctor helps initiate the 'utterance' of a child crying. We are all born mute spiritually speaking, and obviously most in the church today still are. I know that analogy is not bible, but it works for me. I say that because I believe it is 'my spirit' that has/forms the spiritual vocabulary that utters forth from my body. I don't believe it is the Holy Spirit speaking.

And here we go again with what you THINK. And it's perfectly obvious that what you think is based on your attempts to defend something you hold DEAR. While YOU choose to believe that it's YOUR spirit that brings about the utterance that you call 'tongues'. What 'spirit' do you suppose brings it about in those practicing VOODOO? You know, the ones that openly profess that they actions are those of 'evil spirits' allowed to possess their bodies? They don't call them 'their own' spirits. They openly profess that the spirits that cause them to shake and shimmy, fall down and flop around, mumble in incoherent imitation of speech, are demons or evil spirits. Yet if you witness such behavior, it only varies from the charismatic movement in INTENSITY. The actions and sounds resemble each other almost identically.

2. Soards, 1 Corinthians (1999) p.282

“In setting the word spirit with a lower case “s” and in rendering the phrase “with his spirit” rather than “in the spirit,” the NIV interprets Paul’s use of the word (Gk. Pneuma) to refer to the spirit of the human speaker. This reading is possible, perhaps correct; yet, Paul’s ambiguous phrase in Gk. Contains the possibility that Paul meant to indicate that a tongue speaker spoke “in the Spirit of God,” so that the unintelligibility of the speaking was because of the divine origin of the language. A final decision for this question of translation is impossible and not crucial for grasping the basic sense of Paul’s statement”.

The NIV translation committee may not have had a supposed human spirit in mind where they may have simply decided to follow the safer option by keeping to the tradition of our English Bibles; the Common English Bible (2011) decided to go for ‘Spirit’. Even though Fee’s solution with ‘S/spirit’ would have undoubtedly been discussed by the NIV (and other) translation committees, I wonder how they could have translated it back into English?

Like I may have said before; I have a bit of a problem with men translating the bible who are not Spirit baptized to begin with. That simply makes their 'text with the wrong context a pretext' translation. Mental giants they may be, but they lack what only a charismatic experience can supply in translation IMO.

And from my perspective, ALL I see is an attempt to offer explanation or justification for something and using means completely SEPARATE from the Bible. The words above are obviously the words of MEN, not understanding offered from the Bible.
Let me ask this: If God desires that we KNOW Him. And if He desires for us to follow in KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING, and the most important part of our knowledge and understanding is that we DO that which is of benefit to the BODY and NOT our individual selves, what would be the purpose of offering some GIFT that brings about NOTHING but 'self edification'. What is the PURPOSE of a GIFT that doesn't make any sense? A 'gift' that when practiced, even the practitioner has NO IDEA of what they are SAYING?
But I have WITNESSED the sense of EUPHORIA or 'trance' that those that speak in tongues often experience. And to me, it's scary to the point of being almost terrified. I get the EXACT same FEELING that I get when witnessing a VOODOO ritual. Now WHY would God allow that? Why would He not make me feel like I'm in the presence of someone talking to God? Instead, I feel EXACTLY like I do when witnessing those possessed by DEMONS making incoherent sounds. Not of MY OWN accord. It's no different than the 'willies' I get when I see a big ole spider. I don't FEEL the way I do on PURPOSE. I have NO CONTROL over it. It just gives me the 'willies'.
And why hasn't the ENTIRE Body of Christ received this 'gift'? Why are there only CERTAIN people, people RAISED to believe in this 'gift' that get 'caught up in it', only the ones DOING IT?
You say it's the individual's spirit that is speaking. I ask HOW? How would the individual KNOW what to DO if it is entirely of their own accord. Unless someone TAUGHT them to do it. If it is NOT the Holy Spirit that gives utterance, how do YOU know what to speak? So it CAN'T be YOUR 'spirit'. But some OTHER 'spirit' that gives utterance. For you cannot DO that which YOU KNOW nothing OF unless SOME spirit gives you the ABILITY. So the inspiration MUST come from SOME OUTSIDE source or it wouldn't exist. Your OWN spirit knows how to do NOTHING in and of itself.
Yet the Bible states that the 'gift of tongues' is 'AS THE SPIRIT gives utterance'. It does not offer that it is from one's OWN 'spirit'. That is what YOU have stated that YOU and some OTHERS THINK. But it's NOT Biblical in the LEAST. Nothing in the Bible offers that the GIFT of tongues is a matter of one's OWN 'spirit'. ALL the 'gifts OF The Spirit' are exactly THAT: OF THE SPIRIT. Not one's OWN spirit, but the HOLY SPIRIT. Even those that profess to speak in tongues INSIST that it is a manifestation of the HOLY SPIRIT that accompanies BAPTISM in the Holy Spirit. That it is a SIGN of the Holy Spirit's Baptism EXISTING. Yet here you profess a DIFFERENT kind of 'tongues'. One NEVER mentioned in the Bible. If it is a GIFT of the HOLY Spirit, then it is THE gift that the Bible states is performed AS THE SPIRIT GIVES UTTERANCE. Not one's OWN spirit, but the Holy Spirit. What you propose is a 'gift' bestowed upon YOURSELF for 'self edification'. Not of your OWN 'spirit' for your own spirit isn't capable of creating such things. If there is a 'spirit' involved, it is some 'other spirit' than the Holy Spirit. For YOUR spirit is but a babe that follows the influence of other 'spirits'. Get it? You do very LITTLE of your own accord. That which you do is GUIDED by SOMETHING: spirits or Spirit. The INFLUENCE comes from somewhere. And that is WHY we are told that the 'gift of tongues' ONLY exists as THE Spirit gives utterance. That way we KNOW that any other form or source is from some OTHER influence.
I mean REALLY, in ALL honesty, why do YOU suppose that all the different denominations aren't GIFTED with 'tongues'? Honestly?
For the inference offered by those that DO speak in tongues is that NONE of the other 'churches' are TRUE 'churches' or they WOULD. Do you REALLY believe that? That the Holy Spirit would encourage or actually PRODUCE such division?
Yet all indications point to the conclusion that the 'gifts of the Spirit' are offered to the ENTIRE Body of Christ. So that means that you must have been taught and learned to believe that only those churches that behave as YOU DO are actually members of the Body.

1CO 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with (prayer) tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

I again believe this is talking about your spirit, and the only way you will get revelation/knowledge/prophysey/teaching type information out of that tongue is if you 'pray for an interpretation' as verse 13 mentions.

Don't you see how you continually contradict yourself in an attempt at justification? If we are INSTRUCTED to PRAY for understanding or knowledge, yet the tongues that you speak are incoherent. Without UNDERSTANDING or KNOWLEDGE. Can't you see the contradiction? Why would one pray for understanding and knowledge yet practice something that doesn't bring a BIT of knowledge or understanding. That's COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. It would serve NO purpose and actually go AGAINST the instruction we have been offered to PREVENT exactly what it is that you are CHOOSING to do.

1CO 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown (prayer) tongue pray that he may interpret.

But that's because 14:2 is also speaking about and dealing with the tongue of our spirit where, even the translators, got this one right by not capitalizing IMO.

1CO 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 (prayer tongues).

And look at the lengths that you will travel to try and MISINTERPRET what is being offered. If I tell you, what you are doing is MISUNDERSTOOD, can't be understood. So what you SHOULD be doing is focusing on that which CAN be understood. Can't you see that I am basically TELLING you to STOP that which is NOT understood. Pray that it may be interpreted. So, if you are INSTRUCTED to pray for INTERPRETATION, doesn't that TELL you that without the interpretation it's USELESS? And then READ ON:
15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
While you will attempt to say that this is offering TWO separate means for each, in TRUTH, that couldn't be further from the truth and the entirety of what is offered proves it. What it is saying is: when I pray I will pray with UNDERSTANDING. And when I SING I will SING that which is UNDERSTOOD. The entire chapter involves Paul instructing the 'church' that anything that does NOT 'bring edification to the Body' is USELESS and nothing other than SELF EDIFICATION.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
The answer? NOTHING!!!!

I can't "postulate" that POV either and agree with you that it makes no sense.

You may not be seeing this "reference to how" quite like I do. I believe Paul is saying they had too had people who never received the baptism back then, just like we do now. Probably not as prevalent but still an obvious scriptural issue IMO. So the reason they 'could not' speak in a tongue was not because they didn't 'choose' to....they simply couldn't. They couldn't 'do so' anymore than those today who aren't Spirit baptized and therefore having a spirit language for their spirit to begin with.[/QUOTE]

And that is a ridiculous premiss that ONLY exists among those that SPEAK in tongues.
For NO WHERE in the entire Bible does such a premiss exist. It is SELF MADE by those that attempt to justify speaking in gibberish as 'tongues'. There is no difference in Baptism. I'm not talking about being dunked in water. I'm talking about REBIRTH. It is the SAME for ALL. You are either BORN again and have become a NEW creature or you're NOT. Plain and simple. And dunking you in water is NOT the determining factor. Nothing offered says that those waiting to receive the Holy Spirit were sitting in a room dunking each other in water. The Spirit came upon them and they were REBORN in that very Spirit. And when ANYONE is reborn it is the SAME process for ALL. It does not differ from ONE 'group of the Body' to another. There are NOT two DIFFERENT forms of REBIRTH. While the 'gifts' may vary from individual to individual, the BAPTISM in Spirit is the SAME for ALL the members of the Body.
My point here isn't to offer what 'I think'. I have tried my best to place what I offer in scriptural context. I do NOT 'hate' those that profess to speak in tongues. I have nothing 'against' them whatsoever. If anything, it is through the love that I profess that exists in my heart for ALL men that leads me to try my best to spread the TRUTH regardless of what place that ends up putting me in the hearts of them to whom I speak.
Blessings,
MEC

emekrus · Jul 3, 2015

Here is an excerpt from Kenneth E. Hagin's Teaching on Tongues in his book:Tongues Beyond The Upper Room...

"Now, if believers are all praising God together in church, it's
perfectly acceptable for them to praise God in tongues all at
once. But it certainly would be wrong for them to all start
speaking in tongues out loud while the preacher is trying to
teach the Word! And it certainly wouldn't be right for the
preacher to spend an hour teaching the people in tongues with
no interpretation! In that case, the preacher would be edified, but
the people wouldn't get anything out of it. This is what Paul is
talking about in this passage."

This revelation above, concurs perfectly with mine. I don't know what is your opinion about it.

Imagican · Jul 3, 2015

And I accept those words as belonging to Kenneth Hagin. Not a problem in the least. But when we compare those words to what we are offered in the Bible, we find that his words fall WAY short of the truth.
Do you place your faith in the words of Kenneth, or the apostle Paul? I believe that it's pretty clear that Paul's words were TRUTH. At least it is MY belief that Paul's words were TRUTH. For I accept that the Bible is the Word of God. I don't know ANYTHING about Mr Hagin so far as TRUTH is concerned except to compare what HE offers to the Bible. And when doing so he falls WAY short in just about everything I have ever heard him mutter.
Blessings,
MEC

Hillsage · Jul 3, 2015

Imagican said:
And from my perspective, ALL I see
Blessings,
MEC

That's why I'm not responding any more....'from your perspective'...that's all you are going to ever see. In order to get more you must be able to see more...more than you already have.

Biblicist · Jul 3, 2015

emekrus said:
Here is an excerpt from Kenneth E. Hagin's Teaching on Tongues in his book:Tongues Beyond The Upper Room...

"Now, if believers are all praising God together in church, it's
perfectly acceptable for them to praise God in tongues all at
once. But it certainly would be wrong for them to all start
speaking in tongues out loud while the preacher is trying to
teach the Word! And it certainly wouldn't be right for the
preacher to spend an hour teaching the people in tongues with
no interpretation! In that case, the preacher would be edified, but
the people wouldn't get anything out of it. This is what Paul is
talking about in this passage."

This revelation above, concurs perfectly with mine. I don't know what is your opinion about it.

Unfortunately Hagin's teaching on tongues stands about as far from the Scriptures as one could maybe ever hope to get. If you compare his teachings with what Paul has said in 1Cor 14 then his perspective is easy to reject.

If Hagin were alive today, due to the incredible amount of Biblical understanding that has occurred since his time, I wonder if he would see the need to retract his very unhelpful statements.

My best advice would be to never take any of Hagins material or with any other wof practitioner in isolation.

Biblicist · Jul 3, 2015

emekrus said:
A few days back, I decided to open-heartedly re-read the scripture that talks about Tongues in detail(1Corinthians14). And while I did that, I believed the Holy Spirit to help me with revelation (I believe I have the Holy Spirit In me; and he always guides me into all truth). And I know he did.
And here is what I got, And I want you to judge the revelation...

As I carefully studied, I found out that the Apostle Paul's admonition concerning the administration of Tongues, was from two perspective. One perspective, talks about speaking in Tongues for the sake of edification the Church ( or Call it the congregation). The the second, perspective, talks about worshiping with Tongues in the Church.

It’s wonderful to see that you are doing this but Paul doesn’t actually make a distinction or suggest that there are different ways where praying in the Spirit can be used within the congregational setting, as the Holy Spirit will always direct his words to the Father (and never to man) as worship. During our times of corporate praise and worship, where we provide the stipulated 3 tongues where each are to be interpreted/articulated, then these words are themselves worship, where we allow the Spirit to speak to the Father where they are subsequently interpreted for the congregations benefit.

Now from what I saw, as a Preacher, Teacher, Prophet (or any Church public figure) speaking in Tongues in the first perspective needs Interpretation. Either by a third party, or the speaker (himself). For the sake of edification of the Church. Hence he says, He that speaks in an unknown Tongue, let him also pray that he interpret.

I’ve noticed your emphasis with platform ministry, such as with the “Preacher, Teacher and Prophet” but this is more of a contemporary development as congregational worship is intended to involve all of the congregation, where the music/song leader should only be there to coordinate the music. In a healthy Full Gospel environment, the music leader or platform leader should not get in the way of spiritual worship where the congregation should be the ones who are offering prophecies and words of praise in the Spirit.

You’re right in that each and every tongue certainly needs to be interpreted.

Then he also gave an alternative, if tongues is to be administered, let them be three and let one interpret.

As above.

Then for the second perspective-worshiping. That is Praying, Singing, and thanking in Tongue-as a minister, does not require interpretation. A minister, in the process of leading worship,(i.e is Prayer, Song and Thanksgiving) in the Church, may decide to be leading in Tongues ( while the rest people in the congregation are worshiping as they are led). Under this condition, he(the minister) is not required to interpret his own prayer, but rather, he is also to interject with understanding(articulation) in order to avoid confusion from the audience.

Even though Paul does not specifically make mention of the common contemporary practice where many Pentecostal congregations allow or even encourage everyone to sing in the Spirit all at once (but 1Cor 14:23 might suggest this); as Paul speaks strongly against the use of any audible uninterpreted tongues within the congregation, I would imagine that he had this very same issue in mind.

Again, anyone who is leading a meeting stands under the same guidelines as anyone else. I’ve certainly seen many platform leaders inserting a few words in tongues, but in my opinion this seems to be used in two ways; the first being that it may help them to get over a pause in the meeting where they are unsure of which way to go or that they are trying to impose an awe of spiritually during times of worship – but both are certainly inappropriate where neither should ever occur.

I should point out that church’s don’t have audiences as they are comprised of the Saints who meet to worship their Lord; now the congregation is certainly comprised of those who are teachers, prophets and those who function in healings, powers and tongues but they are all a part of the one congregation, so we should never suggest that there is a super-class and those who are merely there as an audience.

Now another thing is noteworthy here, for the skeptics who say tongues oft not to be done willingly but spontaneously. Please mark the phrase "I will". Which is to say, praying,singing and thanking in Tongues can be done willingly as much as praying, singing and thanking in understanding (normal language) can also be done willingly.

I'm open-hearted to hear your Spiritual and Scriptural Judgement.

I say with a smile, that maybe it might not be a good idea to declare that those who disagree with you that they are skeptics.

But your right, it is the individual Believer who chooses to offer a word of praise to the Father in the Spirit and I seriously doubt if the Holy Spirit ever directs anyone to do so.

Hillsage · Jul 4, 2015

Biblicist2 said:
Unfortunately Hagin's teaching on tongues stands about as far from the Scriptures as one could maybe ever hope to get. If you compare his teachings with what Paul has said in 1Cor 14 then his perspective is easy to reject.

If Hagin were alive today, due to the incredible amount of Biblical understanding that has occurred since his time, I wonder if he would see the need to retract his very unhelpful statements.

My best advice would be to never take any of Hagins material or with any other wof practitioner in isolation.

I once heard a very good teaching on the baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues from Mark Rutland. He made a statement I've not forgotten. "I don't care if you talk it right, I care that you GOT IT." Which is kind of biblical when you think about the two sons and the Father's command to work in the vineyard. One talked it right and said I'll go but didn't. The other talked it wrong and said I won't, but then did. Who was right in the teaching of this parable? The one who talked it right but walked it wrong, or the one who talked it wrong but walked it right?

Kenneth Hagin walked in a tremendous amount of gifting and power throughout his ministry. Like I said before I was slain in the Spirit like a head shot cow according to a witnessing friend. And apparently God wasn't as concerned about Hagin's talk when God was handing out power in that man's walk. We, as puny humans, think we got our theology right and even Paul has a better admonition IMO.

1CO 4:19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power.
20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.

So like brother Mark 'basically said'; I don't care about your theology as much as I care about whether or not you walk in the supernatural power of tongues. The gift that the ignorant claim is least because it's last instead of realizing if they can't make it up the least 'first step' of supernatural experience, they probably aren't getting the 'more' which comes after.

BTW I never really followed Kenneth H. all that much after a few short years early in my Charismatic walk, but what I saw, I thoroughly enjoyed.

Biblicist · Jul 5, 2015

Hillsage said:
I once heard a very good teaching on the baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues from Mark Rutland. He made a statement I've not forgotten. "I don't care if you talk it right, I care that you GOT IT." Which is kind of biblical when you think about the two sons and the Father's command to work in the vineyard. One talked it right and said I'll go but didn't. The other talked it wrong and said I won't, but then did. Who was right in the teaching of this parable? The one who talked it right but walked it wrong, or the one who talked it wrong but walked it right?

As for critiquing Hagins understanding of tongues, where I previously stated that he was obviously deficient with his understanding of the purpose of praying in the Spirit, this is simply life. If we take the position "I don't care if you talk it right, I care that you GOT IT" then we will undoubtedly end up accepting not only incorrect doctrine but also a host of strange heresies along with the antics of people such as Todd Bentley.

Now, my two favourite scholars would be with the exegetical scholar Gordon D. Fee along with theologian Anthony C. Thiselton, who in my opinion have done more to strengthen the theological foundations of the Full Gospel probably more than most. Now one of the reasons that I value their work (along with that of many others) is that they are open to their work being critiqued and at times criticised by their peers where they will both allocate time within their books to addressing the concerns of their peers.

For instance, even though I believe that whatever these two men say is always worth listening to, when it comes to Fee, even though he undertook some superb and very helpful exegetical work on 1Cor 12 (First Corinthians, 1987), in my opinion his theological assessment of this same chapter leaves a lot to be desired, where I would view some of his opinions as being counterproductive; then there’s Fee’s strong egalitarian stance which in my view is embarrassing. With Thiselton, in spite of his incredible intellect and knowledge of “the spiritual matters” (12Cor 12:1), his approach to prophecy lets him down but both of these men are more than capable of accepting criticism.

Kenneth Hagin walked in a tremendous amount of gifting and power throughout his ministry. Like I said before I was slain in the Spirit like a head shot cow according to a witnessing friend. And apparently God wasn't as concerned about Hagin's talk when God was handing out power in that man's walk. We, as puny humans, think we got our theology right and even Paul has a better admonition IMO.

1CO 4:19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power.
20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.

Does that excuse bad doctrine where we are to walk blindly and uncritically accept his every thought simply because he had a ‘reported’ powerful ministry – that makes no sense.

So like brother Mark 'basically said'; I don't care about your theology as much as I care about whether or not you walk in the supernatural power of tongues. The gift that the ignorant claim is least because it's last instead of realizing if they can't make it up the least 'first step' of supernatural experience, they probably aren't getting the 'more' which comes after.

BTW I never really followed Kenneth H. all that much after a few short years early in my Charismatic walk, but what I saw, I thoroughly enjoyed.

Remember, this thread is about the Scriptures and with the “Administration of tongues”, it’s not about who can speak in tongues more than others, or with how many sick people anyone may or may not have seen healed. In this context, people are not so much interested in the ‘reported’ successes of a particular ministry but with gaining a better understanding of God’s Word.

As for being able to pray in the Spirit, I’ve been doing this since the mid 70’s and as anyone can speak in tongues, be they adulterers, plagiarists, drunkards or with someone who is walking a fully Righteous walk, this should never be deemed to be a benchmark for someone’s understanding of theology.

Imagican · Jul 5, 2015

emekrus said:
A few days back, I decided to open-heartedly re-read the scripture that talks about Tongues in detail(1Corinthians14). And while I did that, I believed the Holy Spirit to help me with revelation (I believe I have the Holy Spirit In me; and he always guides me into all truth). And I know he did.
And here is what I got, And I want you to judge the revelation...

As I carefully studied, I found out that the Apostle Paul's admonition concerning the administration of Tongues, was from two perspective. One perspective, talks about speaking in Tongues for the sake of edification the Church ( or Call it the congregation). The the second, perspective, talks about worshiping with Tongues in the Church.

Now from what I saw, as a Preacher, Teacher, Prophet (or any Church public figure) speaking in Tongues in the first perspective needs Interpretation. Either by a third party, or the speaker (himself). For the sake of edification of the Church. Hence he says, He that speaks in an unknown Tongue, let him also pray that he interpret.

Then he also gave an alternative, if tongues is to be administered, let them be three and let one interpret.

Then for the second perspective-worshiping. That is Praying, Singing, and thanking in Tongue-as a minister, does not require interpretation. A minister, in the process of leading worship,(i.e is Prayer, Song and Thanksgiving) in the Church, may decide to be leading in Tongues ( while the rest people in the congregation are worshiping as they are led). Under this condition, he(the minister) is not required to interpret his own prayer, but rather, he is also to interject with understanding(articulation) in order to avoid confusion from the audience.

To this end he, says; "Therefore, I will Pray in the Spirit, then I will Pray in understanding".

You openly say that the Holy Spirit, (you believe), has led to your understanding. And then turn right around and try to take the scripture above and turn it around into something utterly opposite of the OBVIOUS intended understanding.
You cannot pray with the understanding of something that you yourself don't even understand. You cannot SING with understanding of something that you do not understand yourself. And Paul admonished the 'church' to STOP practicing that which offered NO 'understanding'.

Now another thing is noteworthy here, for the skeptics who say tongues oft not to be done willingly but spontaneously. Please mark the phrase "I will". Which is to say, praying,singing and thanking in Tongues can be done willingly as much as praying, singing and thanking in understanding (normal language) can also be done willingly.

Once again, Paul STATES that he WILL pray and sing WITH 'understanding'. It is also offered that one CANNOT speak in tongues OTHER than: as the Spirit gives utterance. I mean REALLY, how else is something going to be a GIFT of the Spirit where the INDIVIDUAL 'makes up' the order or arrangement. Especially if that arrangement and order has NO meaning or understanding? Does the Holy Spirit REALLY exist and offer GIFTS that are contrary to the commandments of God?
You say that you went back and read the chapter LOOKING for the truth. Then come right back and state that YOU were LED to believe that this ONE chapter was speaking of TWO separate forms of 'unknown tongues'. But the TRUTH is, the BIBLE speaks ONLY one ONE form of 'tongues' as THE 'gift of the Spirit'. For one is offered the ability to SPEAK in 'unknown tongues' to another the ability to interpret. Now, if THE Spirit was TRULY leading you to understanding, SHOW us the PLACE in the Bible that offers that there were TWO separate "GIFTS OF TONGUES" offered through the Holy Spirit.
You know, if you read the entire Epistle in CONTEXT, you'll see that the MAIN issue Paul expounds upon is an UTTER 'lack of love' being exhibited in the 'Church at Corinth'. TRUE love. Love of EACH OTHER. These people were exhibiting SELF LOVE to the point that Paul felt obligated to write an entire letter to these people on the subject. He openly states that EVERYTHING that they SHOULD be doing should be based on LOVE and that otherwise NOTHING they were doing had ANY validity.
He even started out the letter by stating that he WISHED he were able to offer them MEAT but it had become obvious that they couldn't even handle MILK. Then went on to BEG them to 'put away' their CHILDISH ways and become MEN in understanding and practice.
He placed the gifts in order of importance and then said seek the BEST gifts. Not the ones of LEAST importance. And then said that if someone was seeking the practicing of 'gifts' BEFORE they had even learned to share their love that they were MISUNDERSTANDING the entire meaning of the Holy Spirit. That the seeking of SELF edification is utterly CHILDISH, (me, me, me: what PLEASES ME), and that the TRUE understanding is the seeking of the edification of the BODY: others instead of MYSELF.
There are no gifts of the Spirit that one can create of their OWN accord. That makes it perfectly clear that one can ONLY speak in tongues offered as a GIFT of the Spirit, AS the Spirit GIVES utterance. Get it? That means that if it is something of YOUR OWN design, it is NOT a 'GIFT' of the Holy Spirit. And the means of KNOWING if what one is doing is OF the
Holy Spirit is to compare what they are DOING to the RULES set down by Paul who STATES that these rules ARE the COMMANDMENTS of GOD.

I'm open-hearted to hear your Spiritual and Scriptural Judgement.

I wonder just how TRUTHFUL this statement is? For most of what you offered above, to me, looks MORE like an attempt at personal justification than what you STATED your purpose was in going back and rereading what the Bible offers. For to say that there are TWO forms of 'unknown tongues' offered THROUGH the Spirit is utterly unbiblical. NOTHING offered in the Bible indicates that there are more than ONE form of TRUE tongues and that it can ONLY be a GIFT if it is offered AS THE SPIRIT GIVES utterance. But you have attempted to offer that YOU were led BY the Spirit to a DIFFERENT understanding.......

Emeke

Not an attempt at personal attack. Don't know you. But I did read your words and have tried to understand them as honestly and openhearted as possible. So what I have offered is my assessment of your words compared to scripture and understanding. Not YOU personally. Don't even know you personally.
And in closing, Paul STATES that if there is NOT an interpreter, one CANNOT SPEAK tongues in the Church. He STATES that one desirous of speaking in tongues in the Church without an interpreter is to REMAIN SILENT. Silent is NOT mumbling or whispering or speaking under one's breath. Silence MEAN without UTTERANCE AT ALL.

Blessings,

MEC

Biblicist · Jul 5, 2015

Imagican said:
Not an attempt at personal attack. Don't know you. But I did read your words and have tried to understand them as honestly and openhearted as possible. So what I have offered is my assessment of your words compared to scripture and understanding. Not YOU personally. Don't even know you personally.
And in closing, Paul STATES that if there is NOT an interpreter, one CANNOT SPEAK tongues in the Church. He STATES that one desirous of speaking in tongues in the Church without an interpreter is to REMAIN SILENT. Silent is NOT mumbling or whispering or speaking under one's breath. Silence MEAN without UTTERANCE AT ALL.

Except for the part in black your post was spot on.

When Paul says (14:28) "let him speak to himself and to God", Paul is allowing us to quietly speak to ourselves so that it does not disturb the unsaved or cessationist visitor. From past experience in my early days, I can appreciate that most cessationists would be unfamiliar with congregational free praise where there are those times that even normal conversational speech is hard to hear. So this fits in perfectly with Paul's instructions.

Imagican · Jul 5, 2015

Hagin? Oh my. But I guess it's inevitable that eventually here on the forums one will run into just about anything. Bene Hindi, Hagin, about a FEW hundred others that have shown obvious 'signs of our times' so far as FALSE prophets and people following them..................
That someone would even MENTION such names in a serious discussion of the TRUTH makes me question why I would even waste my time trying to expound upon the TRUTH to someone with itching ears LOOKING for 'false prophets to follow'. For is that is the case, I doubt I could offer a WORD that would be heard or understood.
And Biblicist, are you seriously trying to say that a drunkard can be 'born again' and REMAIN a drunkard. Or a 'murderer' can be 'born again' and REMAIN a murderer?
I offer that such an offering is utterly contrary to the TRUTH. For Paul STATED that one that has received the Spirit in TRUTH shouldn't even sit and EAT with such as these. He tells the 'Church' at Corinth to THROW OUT the man that's sleeping with his father's wife. I don't think that he needed to add drunkards, thieves, murderers, etc, etc, etc.
The Holy Spirit does NOT dwell within those that are LIVING IN sin. While one 'born again' may sin. It is IMPOSSIBLE for one with the intention to CONTINUE IN sin to BE 'born again'. That is the whole purpose of REBIRTH: for those that have been led by the Spirit to STOP doing that which is contrary to God's will. And a NEW creature is NOT a new creature that continues on the SAME PATH as an OLD creature. A NEW creature takes a NEW PATH.
If we are not to even sit and eat with those LIVING IN sin, then it is apparent that they are not, CANNOT be a 'part of the Body'. PERIOD. NO exceptions.
Or, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is ignorant? Or without power? If we are MADE a new 'creature', that means it is NOT of 'our own accord'. If we are MADE that means that some 'other source' is responsible for the REMAKING.
When Jesus healed, he didn't ONLY heal a persons legs or eyes. It states that when they were healed they became COMPLETELY HEALED: 'whole'. Your words would indicate that someone completely SICK can be 'born again' or HEALED and REMAIN in their SICKNESS. Not from what I have come to understand.
But I will agree that ANYONE can 'speak' in what YOU have stated YOU believe tongues to be.
I have already pointed out: in Africa, we can witness VOODOO rituals where seemingly the exact same 'tongues' are used.

Blessings,

MEC

Biblicist · Jul 5, 2015

Imagican said:
Hagin? Oh my. But I guess it's inevitable that eventually here on the forums one will run into just about anything. Bene Hindi, Hagin, about a FEW hundred others that have shown obvious 'signs of our times' so far as FALSE prophets and people following them..................
That someone would even MENTION such names in a serious discussion of the TRUTH makes me question why I would even waste my time trying to expound upon the TRUTH to someone with itching ears LOOKING for 'false prophets to follow'. For is that is the case, I doubt I could offer a WORD that would be heard or understood.

Oh dear . . . the American tele-evangelist, how embarrassing for we Pentecostals. But of course your argument is merely an attempt at guilt-by-association where I could just as easily foolishly make reference to the hard-core cessationist Westboro Baptists as reflecting all cessationists.

And Biblicist, are you seriously trying to say that a drunkard can be 'born again' and REMAIN a drunkard. Or a 'murderer' can be 'born again' and REMAIN a murderer?

Did I say ‘murderer’, I think not. Actually, how does someone “remain (or un-remain) a murderer” as it’s something that seems to be something that would be hard to undo, after all, once your murdered you tend to stay that way.

As for the drunkard, guess what, this happens every day of the week where those who are addicted to alcohol turn to the Lord; in many (or most) cases, as their bodies have been so damaged by alcohol they remain alcoholics for life where their bodies need to keep well away from the horrid stuff.

As for the person who commits adultery, much the same occurs here as well as even a brief adulterous moment cannot be undone. Now if the Spirit filled Believer chooses to have even a brief one-night affair this does not mean that he/she will be unable to pray in the Spirit; where I suspect that the following morning might see the offender possibly spending a few anguished hours praying in tongues and if they were to fail to repent then I have little doubt that 1Cor 11:30-32 & Jms 5:14-16 might all of a sudden kick-in. Of course, if he/she is a ‘tele-evangelist’ where some of them tend to say, “Oops, I made a mistake and lets move on” then things could quickly become problematic.

But I will agree that ANYONE can 'speak' in what YOU have stated YOU believe tongues to be.
I have already pointed out: in Africa, we can witness VOODOO rituals where seemingly the exact same 'tongues' are used.

You know what, I’ve been hearing this old-wives tale for years where there has absolutely never been a single recorded incident where anyone has been able to speak in tongues while not in an extreme ecstatic state and even then I will question what people think that they might have heard. A lot of cessationists also try and pull the line that the early Greek oracles were supposed to speak in tongues as well but this has been debunked by those who specialise in this field.

the TRUTH

I do like how cessationists like to use the word "truth" a lot. Maybe you chaps think that if you say it enough that you might even believe what you say yourselves - it always amuses me.

Imagican · Jul 5, 2015

Hillsage said:
That's why I'm not responding any more....'from your perspective'...that's all you are going to ever see. In order to get more you must be able to see more...more than you already have.

See, YOU say this, but the Bible says something DIFFERENT. The Bible COMMANDS us NOT to accept doctrine that they themselves didn't share. And then we have the concept of the 'narrow path' which would obviously indicate that this 'open-mindedness' that you propose would be in opposition.
But it is clear from reading that each of you declaring gibberish to be tongues has a DIFFERENT understanding than EACH OTHER that you have abandoned this concept of accepting NO doctrine NOT delivered by the apostles. For if the doctrine of tongues was delivered BY the apostles, each of you would possess the SAME understanding.
No Hillsage, I am not so OPEN minded as to follow someone that says: "Here is Christ". or "there is Christ". I have already found Christ and not through following MEN or their understanding. So I'm not LOOKING for a means to allow MORE confusion into my mind or heart. And I'm not looking for that which brings ME 'self edification' so far as trying to exhibit something INTENDED to make them BELIEVE that: I am MORE Holy than they are.
And then there is THIS FACT: Among those that profess to be gifted with the ability to 'speak in unknown tongues', we find some of the MOST controversial TEACHERS or MINISTERS or MINISTRIES. Even Biblicist is able to openly admit that those such as Hagin are NOT 'teaching' or 'following' in TRUTH according to the word OR tradition of the apostles.

Blessings,

MEC

The Administration Of Tongues

Full Gospel believer

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Full Gospel believer

old dude

Full Gospel believer

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

The Righteousness and Faith Preacher

old dude

The Righteousness and Faith Preacher

old dude

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Full Gospel believer

Full Gospel believer

One 4 Him & Him 4 all

Full Gospel believer

old dude

Full Gospel believer

old dude

Full Gospel believer

old dude

Similar threads