Salvation and a third baptism often occur simultaneously

[swordsman1]

There can be little doubt that tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 were not the languages of the nations.

I could lead you through the logic of it. But you don't want to see it so I won't try any more.

"Brotherjerry" has acknowledged that it was some kind of mystic language and not the language of the nations. And he has been able to see it without various scenarios layed out to show how ridiculous the directions would be if they were normal tongues being spoken about.

1 Corinthians 14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
………………………..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…………………… if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 What is the outcome then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also. …………………..do not forbid to speak in tongues.

These words have been here for some 2000 years now and a great many have seen that it could not have been normal language that Paul was talking about.

The passage is talking about the person receiving speaking in "tongues". Whatever you envision that to be it could not be his native tongue.

If the message needs interpretation it must be received in a third tongue other than the speaker of the tongues and the intended receiver of the message.

You have two choices as to what tongue the Holy Spirit was transmitting to the original party. It could have been tongues in the sense that charismatics see it. Or it could have been a neutral tongue of a national identity.

If it is the later we have the specter of the Holy Spirit transmitting something like Romanian to someone who normally speaks something like English. All that to get a message to someone else who normally speaks something like French.

If I receive a prophecy from the Lord in this instance, I am to pray that the Lord will provide me with a person who speaks both Romanian and French. If we get find such a person, the Lord can get His prophecy out to the Frenchman. If we cannot, I have to not speak up but just talk very quite Romanian in my spirit to God.

That seems preposterous to me. Such ideas have seemed preposterous to a great many students of scripture over the years. It just doesn't make sense to think that that is what was going on in Corinth when the letter was written.

But then we obviously don't think alike (nor do you and about half the evangelical world at this time think alike). The other option is that we do think alike and you just won't admit the lack of logic in your position because of your bias.

You can only miss these things if you try to miss them because of bias such as yours.

You don't participate in the charismatic things that require faith in the Word of God and you don't want anyone else to.

That is my opinion and so it has seemed to me from your very first post concerning the supposed cessation of gifts.

There is only one description of tongues in scripture (Acts 2) and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language that you have never learned. (That view is shared by all the respected charismatic theologians). There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that redefines or contradicts that definition.

The lexical definition of glossa is clear: the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations. (Thayer's lexicon)

If you read the verses of 1 Cor 14 again replacing 'tongues' with the Acts 2 definition (foreign languages), it will make perfect sense:

For anyone who speaks in a foreign language does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

I would like every one of you to speak in foreign languages, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in foreign languages, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in foreign languages, what good will I be to you.

For this reason the one who speaks in a foreign language should pray that they may interpret what they say.

For if I pray in a foreign language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a foreign language.

So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in foreign languages, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

If anyone speaks in a foreign language, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
​

A tongue is an individual language. Tongues (plural) is multiple languages. The charismatic theory that tongues is a single mystical or heavenly language falls apart because the word is often used in the plural - multiple languages.

Paul even clearly identifies tongues with foreign languages in 1 Cor 14:21-22.

You dont seem to want to address the biblical and historical arguments I've presented so far that refute the charismatic doctrine of tongues (and there are many more I can mention). Instead it seems you would rather attack me personallty for daring to challenge them.

 

[sdowney717]

1 Cor 14
Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.

Ok the Holy Spirit who inspired these words says those who speak in tongues speak to God and NOT to man. This is emphasized by the Holy Spirit saying for no one understands him speaking mysteries in the spirit.
Such a tongue is not for man. God always works by divine revelation. Understanding must proceed from the Throne of God to man, otherwise God's mysteries remain hidden from being understood by man. The purpose of tongue speaking is entirely for the Lord and the tongue speaker but not for other men. the tongue speaker is edified spiritually, other persons, they are not edified.

This is contrasted by someone who prophesies (which is not just future telling), the Holy Spirit teaching that God's purpose is for man to understand in his own natural language.

So speaking in tongues is directed to God, and makes sense as the speaker is encouraged, built up in the Lord by the power of the Holy Spirit.
And prophecy is spoken to man. Has not prophecy always been spoken to man all through bible history?

And Jesus says they will speak with new tongues, those that believe in Him.
By the way, of the various signs Jesus tells us of, which signs do you reject for yourself and others?
Mark 16
17 And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

 

[swordsman1]

It seems charismatisc pin their justification for their version of tongues mainly on 1 Cor 14:2. So let's see exactly what this verse is saying.

One of the basic rules of bible interpretation is that verses should always be examined in context of the surrounding verses. Verse 2 starts with a "For". That means it is an explanation of what was said in the previous verse, v1, which says the Corinthians should desire prophecy. (Throughout this chapter Paul continually elevates prophecy above untranslated tongues). Verse 2-3 then explains why:

"For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them, they utter mysteries by the spirit. But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort." ​

When someone in the small Corinthian congregation spoke in an untranslated language no one understood what they were saying (obviously). Paul doesn't say that nobody in the whole world could possibly understand the language spoken. He is saying that nobody in the local church understands. The context throughout 1 Cor 14 is "in the church" (v5,12,18,23,26,28,34)

It was like someone in your church suddenly speaking in Swahili. Only God, who understands all languages, would have understood what was said.

What was spoken was a mystery. Just because it was a "mystery" doesn't mean it is some mystical celestial language. The Greek word musterion means something that is hidden:

Thayer's lexicon: musterion : a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding.​

It simply means the content of language spoken was hidden and not understood.

Paul then says "But the one who prophesies speaks to people for their strengthening, encouraging and comfort." Prophecy was far superior to untranslated tongues because it can be understood and provide a benefit to the church.

This point is reinforced throughout the chapter where Paul repeatedly points out the futility of untranslated tongues because it is not understood (v5, 6, 9, 11, 13-16, 18, 23, 27). In 1 Cor 12:28, where the gifts are listed in order of importance, prophecy is 2nd only to apostleship, while tongues is at the bottom of the list.

1 Cor 14:2 says nothing about the nature of tongues. It simply notes that nobody in the small Corinthian congregation understood the language spoken. It was a mystery to them. And only God who knows all languages understands it.

 

[sdowney717]

Any believer who speaks edification, exhortation, and comfort according to the Holy Spirit's inspired words and this includes the supernatural scriptures (as these have been revealed by God to man through His apostles, etc, they are not the Apostle's words generally but the Lord's to man for edification, etc...), would be surprised, I think to consider their words have been given to them by the Holy Spirit, so then they are prophesying to men speaking through them to another person.

Jesus also says, not to worry what you are to say as the words you speak will be given to you by God.
How many sermons are divinely inspired, or how many unknowingly have spoken words of wisdom or knowledge from the Holy Spirit, not considering that was God's gift for that time. God does not just silently work inside of His people, no way, Jesus said this too,

John 7:38
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

And man speaks from the heart. Those rivers of living water, is the work of the Holy Spirit shining out and overflowing to others God's wonderful works. And it is not just one river, but many. Christ's voice is like the sound of many waters.

Rev 1
12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire;15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters;

God is not silent for

Romans 10
18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:

“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

Matthew 10:19
But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak;

Scripture says

Philippians 2:13
for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

I get the feeling some think God has now left us orphans to try and figure things out the best we can, as if the windows of heaven are shuttered brass.

 

[Marvin Knox]

.............. it seems you would rather attack me personallty for daring to challenge them.

Not meant personally.

You are a person who holds the same ideas as a great many fine men. But you are wrong none the less IMO.

What I mean to be attacking is your apparent agenda of undermining the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Your insistence that tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is the known languages of the nations goes hand in hand with your other agendas of pushing the idea of cessation and (more importantly IMO) that believers receive the Holy Spirit in the most basic sense of the word after tarrying and spending a requisite amount of time in prayer with other believers, having a select group believers lay hands on you, being baptized and the like.

I know you'll just give non-charismatic the party line that these acts (coming many years after Pentecost in some cased) were exceptions to the rule concerning receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit as a result of the grace of God only either before or at the exact time of "believing".

I reject anything that teaches other than salvation by grace.

There is only one description of tongues in scripture (Acts 2) and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language that you have never learned. (That view is shared by all the respected charismatic theologians). There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that redefines or contradicts that definition.

Yes there is IMO.

Plain old logic will get you to the right place. You refuse to apply logic to the 1 Corinthians 14 passage and just spout the party line.

It appears to me that you hold that line because of preconceived bias.

There is only one description of tongues in scripture (Acts 2) and it is clearly the miraculous ability to speak a foreign language that you have never learned. (That view is shared by all the respected charismatic theologians). There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that redefines or contradicts that definition.

The lexical definition of glossa is clear: the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations. (Thayer's lexicon)

If you read the verses of 1 Cor 14 again replacing 'tongues' with the Acts 2 definition (foreign languages), it will make perfect sense:

For anyone who speaks in a foreign language does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.

I would like every one of you to speak in foreign languages, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in foreign languages, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in foreign languages, what good will I be to you.

For this reason the one who speaks in a foreign language should pray that they may interpret what they say.

For if I pray in a foreign language, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a foreign language.

So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in foreign languages, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?

If anyone speaks in a foreign language, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.​

It is exactly this insistence that the passage is referring to one or more of the common languages of the nations that leaves logic in the dust.

IMO the idea of receiving message in a third language to be passed on through an interpreter to a second language group by the person of the first language group is utterly ridiculous.

Likewise the idea of praying silently to God in a language that He gives to you for that purpose when that language is one of man's languages seems utterly ridiculous.

IMO the idea of some kind of special language between the person and the Lord seems much more plausible. Not only that but it fits better with the entire thrust of 1 Corinthians 14 (as well as the speaking in Acts in the post Pentecost cases.

Likewise the idea that the cosmopolitan people of Jerusalem and Corinth would think someone drunk or mad just because he was speaking a foreign language seems to me un-plausible to say the least.​

A tongue is an individual language. Tongues (plural) is multiple languages. The charismatic theory that tongues is a single mystical or heavenly language falls apart because the word is often used in the plural - multiple languages.

No charismatic or Pentecostal that I am aware of has ever claimed that every instance of tongues is identical language.

I suppose my opinion that much of what we witness in modern charismatic language is much alike simply because it is learned behavior and not really what we see in Acts and Corinthians.

But I see no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of the abuses that often occur.

It seems charismatisc pin their justification for their version of tongues mainly on 1 Cor 14:2. So let's see exactly what this verse is saying.

This is a straw man IMO.

I don't believe that most charismatics pin their justification on 1 Corinthinans 14:2. I certainly don't.

You've yet to address why the Holy Spirit giving a person Swahili rather than a special language is less ridiculous than the latter. It seems to me to be the other way around.

Of course if I prayed for someone to be provided who could speak both Swahili and the language of the congregation then I could speak Swahili out loud rather than use it to pray with.

Why on earth the Holy Spirit would give me a message in Swahili to be the vehicle for delivering a prophecy to a another language group is beyond me.

I will admit though that the Holy Spirit did do some strange things in the scriptures. I suppose there are a lot stranger things that happened in scripture.

I suppose I could have to find a donkey that spoke both donkey and the language of the Corinthians or keep quite in the church and just" hee-haw" quietly to the Lord.

 

[swordsman1]

IMO the idea of receiving message in a third language to be passed on through an interpreter to a second language group by the person of the first language group is utterly ridiculous.

Tongues being foreign languages is indeed strange, but that is how scripture describes it. It is no stranger than the theory you espouse where God speaks in a strange language only for it to be translated into the hearers native language. The only difference in our respective assertions is that yours is a celestial language whereas mine is a foreign human language. Scripture must determine which it is. The plain reading of Acts 2 dictates that it is human languages. A fact iuniversally accepted by the most respected theologians. The only question that needs to be answered is are the tongues of 1 Corinthians different from those of Acts 2.

No charismatic or Pentecostal that I am aware of has ever claimed that every instance of tongues is identical language.

You seem to be very confused on this point. Earlier you said
"What we have at Pentecost itseems is a reversal of what happened at Babel. God mixed up the languages at Babel to keep people from a false religion and restored, as it were, again at Pentecost one language to be understood by all of His people."

If you have since changed your mind and now say there are multiple heavenly languages then fine. But that begs the question how many angelic/heavenly languages are there? Was there a tower of Babel event in heaven as well as on earth?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Tongues being foreign languages is indeed strange, but that is how scripture describes it. It is no stranger than the theory you espouse where God speaks in a strange language only for it to be translated into the hearers native language. The only difference in our respective assertions is that yours is a celestial language whereas mine is a foreign human language.

In light of the fact that one is told to pray and sing to God in the language there is not interpretation provided and that it would be my spirit which was praying and that doing so would edify and build the spirit of the one doing it - it seems quite a bit stranger that we would be talking about doing these things in Swahili rather than a celestial language of some sort.

But you obviously see it the opposite way. What can I say?

Scripture must determine which it is. The plain reading of Acts 2 dictates that it is human languages. A fact iuniversally accepted by the most respected theologians. The only question that needs to be answered is are the tongues of 1 Corinthians different from those of Acts 2.

Not universally at all as you can see here.

Actually not even almost universally since a great portion of evangelical Christianity disagrees with you.

I said earlier: "No charismatic or Pentecostal that I am aware of has ever claimed that every instance of tongues is identical language."

You seem to be very confused on this point. Earlier you said
"What we have at Pentecost it seems is a reversal of what happened at Babel. God mixed up the languages at Babel to keep people from a false religion and restored, as it were, again at Pentecost one language to be understood by all of His people."

No - The language of every Christian's spirit may well be different.

Likewise the communication between each person who's spirit was renewed by the grace of God before Pentecost may have been something very special between them and their creator.

As I have put forth as a possibility - it may be the Holy Spirit's universal communion between the elect which provides the understanding and brings complete unity in the Kingdom of God.

And - we are after all - all citizens of a new and Holy nation as well as a royal priesthood. There are no Jews, Scythians, Greeks or any other nation now that God has translated us in the Kingdom of His Son.

But we don't need to argue semantics. Our difference is much deeper than mere semantics and such.

The difference between you and I is that I am willing to leave the possibilities out there and leave it up to each believer to work it out with God as they see fit. They will not be given a serpent if they ask for all that God has for them in these matters.

You, on the other hand, insist that it can only be the one way that you have determined. You are actively working to undermine the individual believer's ability to work it out with God Himself by teaching the cessation of gifts as being without question and that there is no such thing as a celestial language.

You may well find in the end that you have been fighting against God in this matter.

That's the problem I have had with you from the beginning.

Everyone is welcome to share an opinion when there are several ways to look at something. No problem there. But you go well beyond that as I see it.

By the way - and to repeat again here - whether the languages of the world were actually "spoken" or just heard at Pentecost doesn't effect my theology concerning what is commonly referred to as the Baptism of the Spirit as a second event to initial salvation. In fact - it is easier to understand that they were actually "spoken" than something else. I have never said otherwise.

I wouldn't want to spend a ton of time on something like this and miss the elephant in the room concerning the Holy Spirit's ministries.

It is the equipping of the saints for ministry by a visitation "post salvation" that you are ultimately working against. That's really where we differ most importantly.

P.S.
I don't know how successful I'll be at it.

But I'm going to just try to let it go at that. I don't want to be the one providing a vehicle for your work against the faith walk of believers.

 

[swordsman1]

In light of the fact that one is told to pray and sing to God in the language there is not interpretation provided and that it would be my spirit which was praying and that doing so would edify and build the spirit of the one doing it

No Paul clearly discourages praying in untranslated tongues:

1 Cor 14:14-16 "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. 16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit, how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying? 17 You are giving thanks well enough, but no one else is edified."​

Paul says when people pray it should be with their understanding as well as with their spirits. All prayer should be understood by speaker and hearer alike.

Not universally at all as you can see here.

Actually not even almost universally since a great portion of evangelical Christianity disagrees with you.

Universally among the most respected theologians is what I said. Even the pro-charismatic ones (Grudem, Carson, Fee, Piper, etc) readily accept that Acts 2 is foreign languages. I take it they too are wrong?

No - The language of every Christian's spirit may well be different.

Earlier you have suggested that tongues is:

"a reversal of what happened at Babel....one language to be understood by all of His people"

But now you are saying it is

"The language of every Christian's spirit may well be different."

Should I take that to mean your theory is that each individual believer has their own individual tongues language. So your language is different from sdowney's or anyone else's language? And it is not the language of angels or heaven as most charismatics say?

Perhaps you could tell us in detail exactly what you think it is, together with some scriptural evidence if you have any. Then we could perhaps discuss it more effectively.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No Paul clearly discourages praying in untranslated tongues:

What on earth are you reading?

He says that it is more preferable to edify all than just yourself. But he doesn't discourage praying in untranslated tongues if the preferable thing doesn't transpire because of a lack of translation.

Paul says when people pray it should be with their understanding as well as with their spirits. All prayer should be understood by speaker and hearer alike.

Paul says that one thing is preferable over the other. That is something I and all charismatics agree with. That's not the same thing as you insinuate.

Note the highlighted "as well as" and the highlighted "all".

What you say makes no sense. It can be both (or either/or) depending on the circumstances.

Universally among the most respected theologians is what I said. Even the pro-charismatic ones (Grudem, Carson, Fee, Piper, etc) readily accept that Acts 2 is foreign languages. I take it they too are wrong?

How many times can I say that it is only a possible interpretation of the events as they transpired?

No one said that those theologian are wrong and no one said that you were wrong.

What has been said is that if there are other ways to legitimately look at these thing we shouldn't be so dogmatic as to cause rancor.

Earlier you have suggested that tongues is:
"a reversal of what happened at Babel....one language to be understood by all of His people"
But now you are saying it is
"The language of every Christian's spirit may well be different."

Should I take that to mean your theory is that each individual believer has their own individual tongues language. So your language is different from sdowney's or anyone else's language? And it is not the language of angels or heaven as most charismatics say?

You should take that as a possibility - nothing more.

I have never said that the prayer language that I employ is the language of angels or the language of heaven. In fact I have said that I do not know much about it at all.

Perhaps you could tell us in detail exactly what you think it is, together with some scriptural evidence if you have any. Then we could perhaps discuss it more effectively.

It doesn't matter what I can surmise that it is. What matters is that you refrain from your insistence as to what it absolutely must be rather than simply stating what you think it might be.

If you did that - we could leave it up to the Holy Spirit and the individual believer to work it all out to the end that the church would be edified when all if said and done.

 

[swordsman1]

What on earth are you reading?

He says that it is more preferable to edify all than just yourself. But he doesn't discourage praying in untranslated tongues if the preferable thing doesn't transpire because of a lack of translation.

Nothing could be more obvious in 1 Cor 14 than Paul not being in favour of untranslated tongues:

"if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, "

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?"

"You will just be speaking into the air."

"For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. "

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."

"how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?"

"no one else is edified."

"I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

"Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. "

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? "​

The reason is because spiritual gifts are only meant to be a benefit to others:

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. "​

Paul says that one thing is preferable over the other. That is something I and all charismatics agree with. That's not the same thing as you insinuate.

Note the highlighted "as well as" and the highlighted "all".

What you say makes no sense. It can be both (or either/or) depending on the circumstances.

Paul says:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. ​

He says what we should pray with both our spirits and our understanding, not just our spirit only.

You should take that as a possibility - nothing more.

I have never said that the prayer language that I employ is the language of angels or the language of heaven. In fact I have said that I do not know much about it at all.

Seeing as your theory is highly implausible for the reasons I've pointed out (and you have not yet addressed), I think we can put it to rest. The most respected theologians and the vast majority of Christians believe the disciples were speaking in foreign human languages.

What matters is that you refrain from your insistence as to what it absolutely must be rather than simply stating what you think it might be.

No I will not refrain from pointing out that the version of the tongues charismatics practice is not the tongues of the NT. If people are in error they should know about it, even if they would rather put their hands over their ears and shout "La La La La La La La La".

If you did that - we could leave it up to the Holy Spirit and the individual believer to work it all out to the end that the church would be edified when all if said and done.

That is not the right way to determine doctrine. Correct doctrine is determined by the careful study of scripture not by "leaving it up to the Holy Spirit and the individual believer to work it all out."

 

[ZacharyB]

I reject anything that teaches other than salvation by grace.

It appears to me that you hold that line because of preconceived bias.

Yes, salvation by grace is for initially entering the kingdom of God/heaven.
'Tis the only way possible to get in.
By His grace, God gives people the faith to believe
... and they are in ... through their belief and faith.
Staying in is another matter.

Everyone holds their line because of their preconceived biases
... UNLESS they have been given spiritual Truth by the Holy Spirit.
ALL spiritual Truths must come via spiritual revelation from God.

Two kinds of preconceived biases (opinions):
(1) biased due to false info from "the doctrines of men"
(2) biased due to true info from God the Holy Spirit
This is the first time you have ever heard this.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Paul says:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. ​

He says what we should pray with both our spirits and our understanding, not just our spirit only.

Nonsense (and dishonest).

You purposefully misrepresented what he said. And you know it.

 

[swordsman1]

Nonsense (and dishonest).

You purposefully misrepresented what he said. And you know it.

No it is not nonsense. Throughout the whole chapter Paul is criticizing the practice of untranslated tongues. Anyone can see that.

And I would ask you to lay off the personal accusations of dishonesty. If you disagree with what I say please refute it from the scriptures, not by attacking me.

 

[sdowney717]

Nothing could be more obvious in 1 Cor 14 than Paul not being in favour of untranslated tongues:

"if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, "

"Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying?"

"You will just be speaking into the air."

"For this reason the one who speaks in a tongue should pray that they may interpret what they say. "

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful."

"how can someone else, who is now put in the position of an inquirer,[d] say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since they do not know what you are saying?"

"no one else is edified."

"I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue."

"Brothers and sisters, stop thinking like children. "

"So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? "​

The reason is because spiritual gifts are only meant to be a benefit to others:

1 Peter 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others"

1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. "​

Paul says:

So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my understanding; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my understanding. ​

He says what we should pray with both our spirits and our understanding, not just our spirit only.



Seeing as your theory is highly implausible for the reasons I've pointed out (and you have not yet addressed), I think we can put it to rest. The most respected theologians and the vast majority of Christians believe the disciples were speaking in foreign human languages.



No I will not refrain from pointing out that the version of the tongues charismatics practice is not the tongues of the NT. If people are in error they should know about it, even if they would rather put their hands over their ears and shout "La La La La La La La La".



That is not the right way to determine doctrine. Correct doctrine is determined by the careful study of scripture not by "leaving it up to the Holy Spirit and the individual believer to work it all out."

Leaving out these scripture are you? Your negativity on tongues does not agree with scriptural truth.

1 Corinthians 14:5
I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;

1 Corinthians 14:21, here actually if you speak and teach against tongues, your speaking against Christ, since God says He will speak to men in other tongues. So go ahead keep on speaking against the Holy Spirit, can't have a good ending. There is ZERO scriptural mention of 'evil, wicked tongue speaking', which some have claimed a tongue speaker is speaking satanic words by the power of Satan. Jesus said speaking against the working power of the Holy Spirit, ascribing such to the power of Satan is a sin which will not be forgiven in this age or the next.

In the law it is written: “With men of other tongues and other lips I will speak to this people; And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,” says the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:22, Tongues are a sign from God to unbelievers, regardless of who gets edified, this comes as a gift from God, and is not to be treated profanely in a godless manner, your LALALALAL comment is not honouring the Holy Spirit, your heart is not right in this matter.

Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

1 Corinthians 14:39
Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues.

 

[swordsman1]

1 Corinthians 14:5
I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.

Of course Paul would wish the Corinthians would speak in tongues when exercised correctly. It was a very useful tool for evangelism and/or church edification if translated. But the chapter clearly condemns untranslated tongues.

1 Corinthians 14:18
I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;

No doubt Paul did excercise the proper use of the gift more than the Corinthians. He was a super-missionary travelling to numerous foreign lands where the gift would have been of immense use in evangelism and edification.

1 Corinthians 14:21, here actually if you speak and teach against tongues, your speaking against Christ, since God says He will speak to men in other tongues. So go ahead keep on speaking against the Holy Spirit, can't have a good ending.

This interpretation of this verse is way off mark. Paul is identifying tongues speaking with Isaiah's prophecy given to the rebellious Jews before the Assyrians invaded Israel. Isaiah says they would hear foreign languages in their midst as a sign of judgement against them. The next verse says "Tongues then are a sign...". Paul clearly applies the same prophecy to tongues speaking, and that it too would be a sign to the unbelieving Jews. Proof, if any was needed, that Corinthian tongues was foreign languages, same as it was in Acts 2.

There is ZERO scriptural mention of 'evil, wicked tongue speaking', which some have claimed a tongue speaker is speaking satanic words by the power of Satan. Jesus said speaking against the Holy Spirit, ascribing such to the power of Satan is a sin which will not be forgiven in this age or the next.

This is a strawman. I never said anything of the sort.

Your understanding of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is also incorrect. Charismatics often wheel this one out as a scare tactic. It was something the Pharisees did by attributing the works of Christ to Satan, when they knew full well it was from God. It is impossible for a Christian to commit the unpardonable sin.

What you can do however is grieve the Holy Spirit. And I expect one thing that certainly grieves Him is attributing to Him something that isn't from Him.

 

[Marvin Knox]

No it is not nonsense. Throughout the whole chapter Paul is criticizing the practice of untranslated tongues. Anyone can see that.

And I would ask you to lay off the personal accusations of dishonesty. If you disagree with what I say please refute it from the scriptures, not by attacking me.

Anyone can see that it is, as you say, untranslated tongues that Paul is criticizing in 1 Corinthians 14. But only the use of untranslated tongues in public - not between a believer and and His God.

IMO anyone can see that. Yet you represent it as being the later. It may be that your bias has blinded you to that fact. But I believe that you do see that and just choose to misrepresent what Paul is doing.

If I didn't believe that you are an intelligent man I might think that you have just misunderstood Paul. I don't however believe that for a minute.

Hence my charge concerning what I believe to be your dishonest representation of the facts concerning what is taught in 1 Corinthians 14.

By the way - I totally agree about the need to contend for truth rather than just letting people believe whatever they want to and leaving them to the vagaries of the false teachers.

If you were contending for solid doctrine I wouldn't talk against what you are doing even if I disagreed somewhat with you about the doctrine itself. Rather I would likely applaud it.

But (putting aside the concept of the tongues at Pentecost being real earthly languages - which I happen to agree with as being the most likely situation) the positions you have put forth concerning the cessation of the gifts are very weak, contradictory and extremely bias. They are not good doctrine at all. Rather they rise to the level of forced and false teaching and an undermining of believer's faith in the promises of God.

Your idea that the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were the languages of the nations is logically completely without merit and make no sense at all as I have clearly outlined for all to see.

Your idea of the many events in the book of Acts, including at Pentecost, being initial reception of the Holy Spirit in the most basic salvation sense even approaches the level of teaching salvation by works apart from the grace of God.

Whether or not a great many people are comfortable along with you with the idea of receiving the Holy Spirit for the first time based on tarrying, baptism, the laying on of hands etc. - you are still wrong. There are no and never have been exceptions to how and why a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of judgment.

In short many of the things which you lay out are based on an agenda that is based on experience (or lack of experience in your case apparently) rather than sound systematic doctrine according to what the scriptures teach.

While I would agree with the idea that much of Pentecostal doctrine is based on "experience", I would also point out that much of the "anti-Pentecostal" doctrine is based on the reciprocal "lack of experience".

I realized long ago that just because I had gone many years without the "second" reception of the Holy Spirit received by Jesus at the Jordan River and the disciples at Pentecost - it was no excuse for me not pursuing what the scriptures clearly showed for believers in this regard.

When I humbled myself enough to approach God in the matter I received it and tongues became part of my life as per the teaching of the scriptures regarding praying and singing in the spirit.

I don't mind if other believers don't do and receive what I did. I don't even mind others teaching that I am wrong and that what I received was not real. What I mind is when that doctrine is forced and is based on an agenda that stems either from a lack of faith and or pride.

The reason that I offer up a charge of bias in your case is that you do not have "individual" disagreements with charismatics about the interpretation of certain passages. Instead your stance cuts such a wide non charismatic swath that they amount to "anti-charismatic" as opposed to "non-charismatic". There is a big difference between the two.

P.S.
You apparently have a lot more time on hand than I do to keep this thread going.

You may just get the last word soon and I'll disappear from the thread entirely. We'll see how it goes.

 

[swordsman1]

It may be that your bias has blinded you to that fact. But I believe that you do see that and just choose to misrepresent what Paul is doing.

If I didn't believe that you are an intelligent man I might think that you have just misunderstood Paul. I don't however believe that for a minute.

Hence my charge concerning what I believe to be your dishonest representation of the facts concerning what is taught in 1 Corinthians 14.

By the way - I totally agree about the need to contend for truth rather than just letting people believe whatever they want to and leaving them to the vagaries of the false teachers.

If you were contending for solid doctrine I wouldn't talk against what you are doing even if I disagreed somewhat with you about the doctrine itself. Rather I would likely applaud it.

I have presented a number of scriptural arguments against the charismatic version of tongues which you have simply ignored. If you were able to refute my arguments you would do so. That fact that you instead resort to making personal 'ad hominem' remarks against me speaks volumes. But feel free to carry on with the slurs if you wish, I'll ignore them and stick to reasoning from the scriptures.

putting aside the concept of the tongues at Pentecost being real earthly languages - which I happen to agree with as being the most likely situation

Your idea that the tongues of 1 Corinthians 14 were the languages of the nations is logically completely without merit and make no sense at all as I have clearly outlined for all to see.

Now that you agree that the Acts 2 description of tongues is 'most likely' foreign languages. We can go on to see if the tongues of 1 Corinthians references is something different:

• The first thing to notice is Acts 2 is the only clear description of the gift. There is nothing in 1 Corinthians that redefines what it is. As Acts 2 is the ONLY passage which describes the gift it must be the determinative. One of the basic rules of hermeneutics says clearer definitive passages (Acts 2) are used to interpret the less definitive ones (1 Cor 14). God wouldn't give us such a clear and detailed description of the gift of tongues in Acts 2 if this was to be the exception rather than the rule. It settles the issue concerning the nature of tongues unless there is exceedingly strong evidence to the contrary. No such evidence exists.
  
  
• The terminology relating to tongues is exactly the same in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians (glossa and laleo). Paul & Luke were close associates and Paul would undoubtedly have shared his experience with Luke. If Luke knew that Paul's tongues was something different from the tongues of Pentecost he would not have used the same terminology when he wrote Acts, and would have made the distinction clear (Acts was written after 1 Corinthians).
  
  
• Paul clearly links tongues with foreign languages 1 Cor 14:21-22 when he quotes Isaiah's prophecy about foreign languages being heard among the Israelites as being a sign of judgement against them, and immediately says tongues is likewise.
  
  
• Replacing 'tongues' in 1 Cor 14 with the Acts 2 description of 'foreign languages' fits the text remarkably well. That's because that is what the Greek word glossa means. Look at the footnotes for the word tongue in the NIV. Everyone says 'or other language'.
  
  
• Tongues appears in plural in 1 Cor 14 indicating that multiple languages were spoken in Corinth.

So there is a wealth of scriptural evidence for tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians being foreign languages, but little or no evidence for it being a mystical/angelic/heavenly language or anything else. Foreign languages has been the accepted definition for 1800 years of church history up into the start of the Pentecostal movement in the twentieth century with their need to accommodate their experience of glossolalia (the linguistic phenomenon whereby the tongue goes into auto-pilot).

While I would agree with the idea that much of Pentecostal doctrine is based on "experience", I would also point out that much of the "anti-Pentecostal" doctrine is based on the reciprocal "lack of experience".

No doctrine should ever be determined by experience. Though we may experience interesting spiritual phenomena, we must put it to the test and if it is not supported by a sound interpretation of Scripture, then it should not to be pursued as something of the Christian faith.

 

[ZacharyB]

... blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ...
It was something the Pharisees did by attributing the works of Christ to Satan, when they knew full well it was from God.

Perhaps someone could Scripturally prove this to be true?
At a minimum, they hoped the miracles were not from God.

 

[brotherjerry]

You apparently didn't follow the intent of much of what I said. My fault likely. So I won't comment on much of this. I'll just address the last sentence.

I'm glad you agree that what was being practiced at Corinth was "mystical unknown languages. You are right of course.

We can now leave out examples of English, French, and Romanian etc. Apparently I wasn't laying that idea out clearly anyway. My only broad point in that exchange was that none of Paul's instructions make sense if he was addressing speaking in the languages of the nations. I'm glad that we now agree that he was not.

Now that we agree that he was addressing the use of "mystical unknown languages" - we can perhaps get somewhere.

Paul was not forbidding the speaking of these mystical unknown languages. Paul was not even "admonishing" the Corinthians for practicing them.

What Paul was doing was giving rules as to how and when the practices could take place without the confusion that was apparently reigning happening in the future.

All of this is exactly what charismatics think about the 1 Corinthians 14 passages.

At least in the 1 Corinthians 14 case (if not Acts as well) - tongues are not any of the known languages of the nations. They are a kind of "mystical unknown language".

Because of this unknown nature we must pray for interpretation or we should not speak it out loud in church meetings.

We are, instead, to "speak to our selves and to God" - praying and singing songs to the Lord without verbal sound. That's all pretty clear.

Even if there is interpretation the public practice of this mystical language should be done with strict rules so that arguments such as are happening here about "gibberish", ecstatic "babbling" and the like.

Would that all Pentecostals and charismatics would obey these directives - we wouldn't be having these problems now if they did.

Marvin what you are missing is that Paul's "instructions" negate the ability of an unknown mystical language.
"than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets..." and "Therefore let one who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret as well" - If you do not know the language you are speaking...don't speak it. So if you cannot interpret it then it is not a language. If a preacher is going to preach a message in Greek to an English speaking congregation he had best also interpret what he said so the church can understand it.

Paul also even states "it should be two or at the most three, one must interpret" Paul clearly indicates that two people understand the language and while one speaks the other is able to interpret and speak the message to the congregation. People are able to communicate in this "tongue" because it is a language. But if it is nothing but gibberish being claimed to be some "mystic language" then no one could actually interpret it.

That is the nature of language that people ignore in order to uphold a mystical language. Mystical or not, language is a series of patterns that could be learned and repeated. Gibberish is not. We have pieced together ancient languages that have not been spoken in thousands of years, we have created other languages (Klingon, pig latin, etc) but yet we have not been able to piece together one bit of the charismatics "mystical language"?

And Paul was absolutely admonishing them for it. By pointing out how it could not be accomplished, even under the "rules" he mentioned.
Paul also points out speaking in a tongue "edifies himself" vs 3 and then repeatedly mentions how we should be edifying the church not ourselves.
"Let all things be done for edification" vs 26
"seek to abound for the edification of the church" vs 12
"so that the church may receive edifying" vs 5

So ya..Paul was admonishing the church in Corinth for such a silly concept that is wrought with confusion and self edification.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So if you cannot interpret it then it is not a language.

I'm not sure where you get such an idea. I can't interpret any language including my native English. But I assure you that they are really languages and that so is English.

If a preacher is going to preach a message in Greek to an English speaking congregation he had best also interpret what he said so the church can understand it.

Of course. Same goes for any kind of language including sign language and a made up language like pig Latin.

That's Paul's point isn't it?

Paul also even states "it should be two or at the most three, one must interpret" Paul clearly indicates that two people understand the language and while one speaks the other is able to interpret and speak the message to the congregation.

Where on earth are you getting the idea that I don't see these things in the text?

People are able to communicate in this "tongue" because it is a language. But if it is nothing but gibberish being claimed to be some "mystic language" then no one could actually interpret it.

Not so. The ability to interpret it is a manifestation of the Spirit and it is given by the Holy Spirit for the common good of the church.

"to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues." 1 Corinthians 12:10

We have pieced together ancient languages that have not been spoken in thousands of years, we have created other languages (Klingon, pig latin, etc) but yet we have not been able to piece together one bit of the charismatics "mystical language"?

There's only one way you will ever be able to do that according to the scriptures. Perhaps you should try the scriptural formula before wasting any more time.

Perhaps you should pray to interpret as the scriptures tell you to do.

Of course you must ask with faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Without faith you need not ask because you can expect nothing from God.

You seem to spend your time undermining the faith of others.

And Paul was absolutely admonishing them for it. By pointing out how it could not be accomplished, even under the "rules" he mentioned.

No so. What scriptures are you reading?

Paul told them exactly how it could be accomplished. They were to pray that they could interpret.

Paul also points out speaking in a tongue "edifies himself" vs 3 and then repeatedly mentions how we should be edifying the church not ourselves.

Not so. The scripture tells us to do both.

Paul tells us exactly what edifies us - praying in the spirit.

Jude tells us to make sure we do exactly that.

Again - where are you getting this stuff?

Paul was admonishing the church in Corinth for such a silly concept that is wrought with confusion and self edification.

Exactly. Paul was admonishing the church in Corinth for such a silly concept as speaking to the congregation without an interpreter - which was causing confusion.

He also very clearly tells them that if there is no interpreter they are to keep silent in the church and speak to themselves and to God. 1 Corinthians 14:28

He also tells them not to forbid the speaking in tongues - something many here seem to have missed.

You are seeing what you want to see.

Perhaps I am also seeing what I want to see.

But it makes more sense to me to think of the tongues at Corinth as some kind of "mystical" language rather than a language from the nations of the earth.

It makes no sense at all to think that God is giving messages to a person who speaks one language of the earth in a second language of the earth to be interpreted to a group who speak a third language of the earth.

Again - picture what you are saying.

I speak English.
God gives me a message in Romanian.
He wants to get the message to a group of people who speak French.

Upon receiving it - I am to pray that I can interpret it. That is that I will be given the ability to speak all three languages in question.

Barring an answer to that prayer - I am to hope that there is a Romanian/Frenchman available to serve as an interpreter. He must also speak English so that I can give him instructions concerning what God wants done.

If I can't find this mysterious Romanian/Frenchman - I am told to just very quietly pray to God in Romanian and make sure I don't do it too loudly lest someone think that I'm mad.

It seems to me that the Holy Spirit could have just given me the message in French and I could have just dictated it and that would have got the job done.

He could have just given me the message in English. It would be highly unlikely that there wouldn't someone there who spoke both languages. Otherwise I would be in a very strange situation.

But He apparently wants to play games with His people and speak to them in Romanian.

Sorry I just don't think that things like this were what was going on in Corinth.

A lot of other silly scenarios come to mind as well. But you get the idea.

Of course you surely have been through these kinds of thoughts many times before you went out a limb and taught about them here.

I know I have.

I find it much more plausible to think of this third language to be a spiritual language rather than a language of the earth. Any other way and it seem ridiculous to me.

To each his own though.

Just so you don't disobey God and forbid the speaking of tongues. That would be disobedient indeed.