The Administration Of Tongues

[Biblicist]

My apologies.
Imagican is on my ignore list for behavior unbecoming to a gentleman.

That's okay, I figured that something along this line occurred.

 

[Hillsage]

However, I still do like your name...it makes me think of fresh meadow breezes.

And here I've let the 'name thing' be all about me when I don't even know what TheBarrd means.

I would like to leave you with a blessing.
May God watch over you and keep you, and lead you into His truth.
Amen

I'll just receive that and continue to give God the thanks.

 

[Biblicist]

Well, it seems that most of the dialogue on this thread might be between you and me. From memory, with my three of four years on the forum I can’t remember if I ever had the desire to even click on the Controversial Theology tab to see what was inside it, but what an interesting thread to find, though I can’t for the life figure out what a thread on tongues is doing here.

Wow, is that what you really believe personally? You believe people get 'the Holy Spirit' when they are first saved?

This is orthodox doctrine where Rom 8:9 says “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him”.

Eph 1:13-14

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.​

1 Cor 12:13

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.​

And if so, didn't Phillip 'the evangelist' have 'that' authority in your opinion?

As Philip was ministering in the very early stages of the New Covenant where the Twelve hardly knew what was happening, we can understand Philips reluctance (or maybe even his poor understanding of the Gospel) where he was unsure if he was supposed to be sharing the Holy Spirit with non-Jews.

Personally, I believe what lines up with my theology and scripture as I understand it.. They "received/decomai the word of God" and got saved then "water baptized" which is exactly what Jerusalem apparently believed. So, after Billy Graham....Phillip...left town, these believers still didn't have the baptism of the Spirit which is subsequent to salvation IMO.. So they sent Peter and John that they might receeive/lambano the holy spirit.

That also was my experience which I personally feel lines up with scripture. And BTW no one ever 'authorized' me to baptize with the Holy Spirit, but I have.

Both the Pentecostal and Evangelical movements recognise that all Believers receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of their Salvation. The classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) believes that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is received subsequent to our initially being 'sealed' in the Spirit, where the BHS must also be evidenced with the individual speaking in tongues.

 

[Imagican]

In 1Cor 14:4-20 Paul explains how uninterpreted tongues within the congregational setting provides nothing of any benefit to the congregation (other than to the one who is praising God in the Spirit). In 14:21 Paul raises the stakes by making reference back to how the Assyrians sacked Jerusalem and how the foreign and unknown commands of the Assyrian soldiers made no sense to them, which often results with soldiers acting callously.

As a result of these unknown articulations from those who are praising God in the Spirit, Paul makes the valid point that those who are not initiated into the things of the Spirit will most likely be repulsed by the Spirits activity, where they may to a certain extent be justified with saying “you are mad” where they walk away being further hardened to the Gospel.

In the case of 1Cor 14:22, the Greek word semion is therefore being used in a negative sense.

I appreciate your response and it is as coherent as could be.

But the mistake was mine. I put the wrong name on the post. It was meant to be directed at Biblicist2. The kind of thing that happens when one doesn't take the proper time to say things.

My apologies.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Biblicist]

I appreciate your response and it is as coherent as could be.

But the mistake was mine. I put the wrong name on the post. It was meant to be directed at Biblicist2. The kind of thing that happens when one doesn't take the proper time to say things.

My apologies.

Blessings,

MEC

But I am Biblicist2, for that matter I am also Biblicist which was my original name before I had a break from the forum. As I discarded my password I came back with a similar name; but I am still the one that you apparently directed your post to.

As for the subject matter, if you were to sit amongst maybe a 100 rank-and-file Pentecostals then most (almost all) would probably be a bit unsure with the meaning of the passage as well. I have a bit of an advantage in that my 20+ year interest with Pneumatology has allowed me to delve into many of the best theological books and articles on the subject (my avatar contains only books on First Corinthians) so this allows me to keep abreast with much of the best theological research.

As I mentioned, you were pretty close to the mark where Paul's annoyance with the Corinthians was that they were introducing a negative sign or signal to their unsaved visitors with their apparent unbridled use of tongues where all or many were singing in the Spirit all at once - this can be very unsettling for the unsaved.

 

[Imagican]

In 1Cor 14:4-20 Paul explains how uninterpreted tongues within the congregational setting provides nothing of any benefit to the congregation (other than to the one who is praising God in the Spirit). In 14:21 Paul raises the stakes by making reference back to how the Assyrians sacked Jerusalem and how the foreign and unknown commands of the Assyrian soldiers made no sense to them, which often results with soldiers acting callously.

As a result of these unknown articulations from those who are praising God in the Spirit, Paul makes the valid point that those who are not initiated into the things of the Spirit will most likely be repulsed by the Spirits activity, where they may to a certain extent be justified with saying “you are mad” where they walk away being further hardened to the Gospel.

In the case of 1Cor 14:22, the Greek word semion is therefore being used in a negative sense.

I appreciate you timely response. And I also appreciate that unlike MANY Pentecostals, you didn't try to alter anything.

But let me offer this:

Upon Pentecost, (ironically the event that Pentecostals derived their name), when the apostles walked out into the street and started speaking, there were those from many different nations present. While some accused them of being drunk and mumbling incoherently, others clearly recognized what they were saying. Not only in their own language, but in the very dialect of the villages and towns they were from.
Obviously most if not ALL that they were speaking TO were 'them that believe not'. For that was the purpose of what they were saying: introducing others to the Gospel of Christ.
And we can SEE the amazement of those that recognized the TRUTH. The apostles were speaking in languages that they COULDN'T have already known. These were people from a place where the entire community considered them to be RUBES or IGNORANT. Yet here they were, speaking, not ONLY in the various languages of those present, but in the very dialect associated with the villages and towns they were from.
A pretty AMAZING 'sign' if you ask me. A
'sign' that could very well be significant enough for those present to take heed and actually LISTEN to what they had to say.
Now, let us couple this event with what Paul offered in 1 Corinthians: Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.
Wouldn't this be a clear revelation that what Paul is saying is that tongues were a gift of the Spirit designed to allow communication between believers and non believers without having to actually LEARN each other's languages? And that when a NON believer witnessed this GIFT, it was a SIGN that there was some spectacular power at hand? A sign DIRECTLY inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would say that to me, it would be a PRETTY impressive sign.

Does any of this make sense?

And, by offering 'tongues are for a sign........." Paul was able to point out that any tongues that did NOT conform to this statement may well NOT be 'tongues directly inspired by the HOLY Spirit'. For you see, Paul was about as humble as a man can be. So instead of outright abrading the Corinthians for misuse of tongues or reverting back into their previous pagan ways, instead, he pointed out the TRUTH so that they could compare what they were doing to his words of TRUTH.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Lately I've been thinking that my computer has gone NUTS. Every time I make an attempt to respond on this forum, my window has hopped and skipped and it's become very difficult to keep track of what I'm doing.
I realize now that it's the NEW format. I keep getting directed to the advertisements on the page and they are actually videos that take up quite a bit of resources. Guess I now understand why they offered the post concerning becoming a 'special member' to eliminate the ads. It's quite obtrusive and has made it VERY difficult for me to maintain the mindset needed to speak of such matters of import. Please forgive me if the frustration has come across in my posts themselves. On numerous occasion as of late, I've gotten upset enough to feel like tossing my computer across the room. LOL. not really but it has been an utter distraction making coherent communication almost impossible.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Hillsage]

Well, it seems that most of the dialogue on this thread might be between you and me. From memory, with my three of four years on the forum I can’t remember if I ever had the desire to even click on the Controversial Theology tab to see what was inside it, but what an interesting thread to find, though I can’t for the life figure out what a thread on tongues is doing here.

Actually the 'Controversial' forum was added recently with the new ownership. The old forum name was 'Unorthodox'. So there you have it. We tongue talkers aren't considered 'normal', because we aren't in the majority. So I've kind of quit trying to placate their 'feelings' that we have something they don't. I try to do so in love, but their adversarial-ness can be a bit challenging.

This is orthodox doctrine where Rom 8:9 says “But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him”.

And, with this doctrine I believe that the spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Even orthodoxy thinks you only have had availability to the indwelling of the "Christ Spirit" since Jesus died, right? Well apparently in the OT some prophets didn't know that was 'the truth'.

1PE 1:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Eph 1:13-14

In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation-- having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory.​

As Philip was ministering in the very early stages of the New Covenant where the Twelve hardly knew what was happening, we can understand Philips reluctance (or maybe even his poor understanding of the Gospel) where he was unsure if he was supposed to be sharing the Holy Spirit with non-Jews.

Whereas I suspect Phillip knew more about doctrine 'living it' then, than we do 'looking back' now. But in checking scripture I do see your point supported, the authorization for 'all 3 baptisms' was given to the 11 disciples initially.

MAT 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

If this is really only one baptism, then why doesn't it say 'names' plural in Mat 28:19? Eg. Baptizing them in the names of, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Why also does it say "baptizing" and not just "baptize" indicating a singular individual event. Baptism is a singular event even if one is baptizing many individuals.

IMO baptize in the 'name' is not the same as 'title'....Father, Son, Holy Ghost aren't names but titles. But name by Greek/Hebrew definition is also 'character or AUTHORITY'. And we need the title authority for three baptisms from Father/Son/Spirit. The Father for repentance, the Son for recognition into the corporate body of Christ and the Holy Spirit to receive supernatural power (beginning with tongues for our spirit).

1 Cor 12:13

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
​

Both the Pentecostal and Evangelical movements recognise that all Believers receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of their Salvation. The classic-Pentecostal (i.e., AoG) believes that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is received subsequent to our initially being 'sealed' in the Spirit, where the BHS must also be evidenced with the individual speaking in tongues.

And this error of beliefs has opened a pandora's box of controversial theology between 'groups' IMO. That's why WE'RE here, in 'Controversial', to your questioning surprise.....but not mine. BTW I think the baptism spoken in !Cor 12 above, refers to the baptism in "Jesus Name" and "the name of the Lord Jesus" which is the second baptism. Of all 4 times in the book of Acts, where some 'moniker' is spoken over the people being 'dunked', there is never a 'ministering baptism' verse, saying "in the name of the Father/Son/Holy Spirit". Hmmmm? I'm just going to stop here with this 'short elaboration of my POV' to try and keep post's less overwhelming.

 

[Biblicist]

Imagician, this is one of those posts that do not require a reply as it contains a fair amount of material that in my view is best considered and digested over a period of time.

I appreciate you timely response. And I also appreciate that unlike MANY Pentecostals, you didn't try to alter anything.

But let me offer this:

Upon Pentecost, (ironically the event that Pentecostals derived their name), when the apostles walked out into the street and started speaking, there were those from many different nations present.

From what Acts tells us, it does seem that the Spirit fell not only upon the Twelve but with the entire 120. If it were only the Twelve then it would have been almost (well definitely) impossible for those with a crowd of thousands who could have been spread across one of the large Temple courts to hear any of the Twelve in their own distinct language.

While some accused them of being drunk and mumbling incoherently, others clearly recognized what they were saying. Not only in their own language, but in the very dialect of the villages and towns they were from.

I would be more inclined to say that they all would have heard them speaking in a manner that was certainly disjointed and stilted. Even though the Spirit had chosen to speak through them in known human languages, it would have been impossible for the 120 to correctly employ voice inflections or to insert pauses where we automatically insert appropriate pauses between certain words. Their speech would certainly have sounded robotic where many would have wondered if these rustic Galileans were drunk and simply repeating rehearsed disjointed sentences.

I don’t know if any of the language groups utilise tonal inflections similar to many East Asian languages but if they did, it would probably have sounded horrible to the ear of those who spoke this type of language.

Prince Charles made a comment recently that went something along the line of “Whenever I have a conversation with a Scot I feel that I often need a translator”; even though they are speaking in English, at times, their accent along with their Scottish colloquialisms can make it hard for many English speakers to know what they are saying.

Obviously most if not ALL that they were speaking TO were 'them that believe not'. For that was the purpose of what they were saying: introducing others to the Gospel of Christ.

The interesting thing about their salvific condition is that we can presume that many of the diaspora Jews who had come to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple would have most likely been Jews who were Righteous Jews in accordance with the Old Covenant. As the vast majority of these “Believers” may have only arrived after the Crucifixion, many were probably unaware of who Jesus was; so in the eyes of the Lord many would have been deemed to be justified through the Old Covenant.

This is why I point out that we do not have any Biblical evidence for tongues being used to speak the Gospel to an unreached people group, or for that matter, with any people group or individual. There is also the problem that in Act 2:11, we hear that the content of what the Old Covenant Jews were hearing, was not the Gospel but words which were speaking of the Wonders of God (praise), which is the normal application of tongues within the congregational setting.This is why the Diaspora Jews were confused as the words of wonder/praise that they were hearing did not contain a coherent message.

And we can SEE the amazement of those that recognized the TRUTH. The apostles were speaking in languages that they COULDN'T have already known. These were people from a place where the entire community considered them to be RUBES or IGNORANT. Yet here they were, speaking, not ONLY in the various languages of those present, but in the very dialect associated with the villages and towns they were from.
A pretty AMAZING 'sign' if you ask me. A
'sign' that could very well be significant enough for those present to take heed and actually LISTEN to what they had to say.

With reference to my earlier point with how the Galileans speech would have sounded odd to those who were fluent in any of the given languages; even though some of the crowd saw it as maybe being no more than rehearsed drunken speech, there were obviously many who realised that in spite of their horrid syntax, that something out of the ordinary was happening but of course they could not work out what it was which is why they had to ask the Disciples what was happening. Here’s where Peter ‘saved the day’ with the Churches first evangelistic message. If Peter had not of spoken up in Aramaic then the crowd would have undoubtedly dispersed being none the wiser.

So the problem we have with seeing the Diaspora Jews as having “recognised the Truth” is that their confessed confusion and bewilderment along with the content of the words that the 120 were speaking (being of praise) gives us no reason to see this Spirit driven event as being evangelistic.

Now, let us couple this event with what Paul offered in 1 Corinthians: Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not.
Wouldn't this be a clear revelation that what Paul is saying is that tongues were a gift of the Spirit designed to allow communication between believers and non believers without having to actually LEARN each other's languages? And that when a NON believer witnessed this GIFT, it was a SIGN that there was some spectacular power at hand? A sign DIRECTLY inspired by the Holy Spirit. I would say that to me, it would be a PRETTY impressive sign.

Does any of this make sense?

As I’ve mentioned before, the first obstacle to the view that tongues can be used to communicate to the unsaved, at least within the congregational setting is that Paul made no allowance for the possibility of any man being able to understand what the Spirit is saying when he prays to the Father through us (1Cor 14:2; 9-13). The second point is that we have no evidence from within the Word where the Spirit has ever done this for anyone, be it a Believer or unbeliever.

And, by offering 'tongues are for a sign........." Paul was able to point out that any tongues that did NOT conform to this statement may well NOT be 'tongues directly inspired by the HOLY Spirit'. For you see, Paul was about as humble as a man can be. So instead of outright abrading the Corinthians for misuse of tongues or reverting back into their previous pagan ways, instead, he pointed out the TRUTH so that they could compare what they were doing to his words of TRUTH.

As a Pentecostal, with all my reading over the years from many of the best commentaries and academic papers that discuss both the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and with tongues; on the odd occasion I do come across a commentator who makes mention that Paul does not bother to concern himself (or us) with defining what may or may not be true tongues or that the source of these tongues are able to be falsified. This silence on Pauls part is somewhat remarkable in that he does not even bother to discuss the possibility of a visitor who could come in pretending to provide a tongue, where they are maybe speaking Farsi (Persian) which maybe one or two in the congregation might know. Even though the Corinthians knew (either before or after Paul’s First Epistle to them) that the Spirit will always direct his words to the Father and never to man, a skilled practitioner could still include an element of heresy to trick the people into thinking a certain way; but, as we can see from the Scriptures, these things apparently don’t concern him.

Even with prophecy, where the Holy Spirit always speaks to the congregation in their local language, Paul does not bother to discuss the possibility that someone will pretend to provide a message when the agent of the message is none other than the person who could be trying to insert a false doctrine. All Paul tells us 14:29 is that the rest of the congregation is to judge the prophecy and nothing else.

As for any suggestion that Paul was being gentle with the Corinthians, a quick perusal through chapter 14 is nothing less than a testimony of where he was slowly dragging them across the hot coals so to speak. Even his opening paragraph on the “spiritual matters” in 12:1, shows that he considers the proud Corinthians to be deficient both with their knowledge and with their apparent lack of love towards the unsaved visitors who might be in their midst.

 

[Imagican]

Imagician, this is one of those posts that do not require a reply as it contains a fair amount of material that in my view is best considered and digested over a period of time.


From what Acts tells us, it does seem that the Spirit fell not only upon the Twelve but with the entire 120. If it were only the Twelve then it would have been almost (well definitely) impossible for those with a crowd of thousands who could have been spread across one of the large Temple courts to hear any of the Twelve in their own distinct language.

No disagreement here. I simply referred to the apostles because they were there. Certainly along with the rest that equaled 120. But we are really not offered exactly how many of the 120 spoke in tongues. But I'm quite sure that this 'gift' of communication would have been offered to ALL the apostles commissioned to spread the Word throughout the KNOWN world. But I won't dispute that it's quite possible that MORE of the 120 than JUST the apostles could well have been gifted with the gift of speaking 'other languages'. But you aren't suggesting in any way shape or form that they were speaking in 'gibberish'? It is perfectly clear through outright admission that there were MANY that understood EXACTLY what they were saying.

I would be more inclined to say that they all would have heard them speaking in a manner that was certainly disjointed and stilted. Even though the Spirit had chosen to speak through them in known human languages, it would have been impossible for the 120 to correctly employ voice inflections or to insert pauses where we automatically insert appropriate pauses between certain words. Their speech would certainly have sounded robotic where many would have wondered if these rustic Galileans were drunk and simply repeating rehearsed disjointed sentences.

Now you digress. It is stated clearly that many heard them in their own language, but ONLY so, even the very dialects from where they were DIRECTLY from: their own villages or towns. Exact inflections as if a next door neighbor where they lived were speaking.

I don’t know if any of the language groups utilise tonal inflections similar to many East Asian languages but if they did, it would probably have sounded horrible to the ear of those who spoke this type of language.

Nope, we are not given any more information than we are given. But a man stating that someone is speaking exactly like someone from where they are FROM is information enough to have a pretty good grasp of the GIFT offered. And since we are speaking of a 'gift of God', I'm quite sure that if God could gift a man with the ability to communicate with those of 'other languages', God could certainly do so in ANY manner He deemed FIT. And that includes speaking in the EXACT dialect of the one being spoken to. Heck, I would venture that God could 'gift' an individual with the ability to be MORE fluent in that language than the one being spoken to.

Prince Charles made a comment recently that went something along the line of “Whenever I have a conversation with a Scot I feel that I often need a translator”; even though they are speaking in English, at times, their accent along with their Scottish colloquialisms can make it hard for many English speakers to know what they are saying.

Once again, I would venture that God is able to 'gift' someone with the ability to speak the language of another BETTER than the one hearing it. I mean REALLY, what would be the purpose of gifting someone with a PARTIAL gift or inadequate gift? I would offer that if gifted by God, it was a PERFECT gift.

The interesting thing about their salvific condition is that we can presume that many of the diaspora Jews who had come to Jerusalem to worship in the Temple would have most likely been Jews who were Righteous Jews in accordance with the Old Covenant. As the vast majority of these “Believers” may have only arrived after the Crucifixion, many were probably unaware of who Jesus was; so in the eyes of the Lord many would have been deemed to be justified through the Old Covenant.

We're not speaking of justification. We are referencing the GOSPEL of Christ. So far as the REASON for the gift of language, it is clear that it was offered for ONE purpose: to communicate the GOOD NEWS: the Gospel of Christ to NON believers. Remember: Tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe NOT.

This is why I point out that we do not have any Biblical evidence for tongues being used to speak the Gospel to an unreached people group, or for that matter, with any people group or individual. There is also the problem that in Act 2:11, we hear that the content of what the Old Covenant Jews were hearing, was not the Gospel but words which were speaking of the Wonders of God (praise), which is the normal application of tongues within the congregational setting.This is why the Diaspora Jews were confused as the words of wonder/praise that they were hearing did not contain a coherent message.

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
If you stop here, it would seem that there is no mention of the Gospel of Christ. But DON'T stop here. Continue reading until the entire chapter is finished.

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Peter IMMEDIATELY explained what was being experienced. He referenced the OT but it's OBVIOUS that it was referenced in according to the advent of Christ. Not merely random words that one day this would happen, but exact PURPOSE was expounded upon by Peter. And I would also question, if these were already believers in God, what would be the purpose of expounding upon the wonderful works of God that were already acknowledged by those being spoken to? I propose that the 'wonderful works of God' in reference WAS the Gospel of Christ. Obviously the words spoken that day led to the conversion of THOUSANDS.

With reference to my earlier point with how the Galileans speech would have sounded odd to those who were fluent in any of the given languages; even though some of the crowd saw it as maybe being no more than rehearsed drunken speech, there were obviously many who realised that in spite of their horrid syntax, that something out of the ordinary was happening but of course they could not work out what it was which is why they had to ask the Disciples what was happening. Here’s where Peter ‘saved the day’ with the Churches first evangelistic message. If Peter had not of spoken up in Aramaic then the crowd would have undoubtedly dispersed being none the wiser.

I can understand, in an attempt to defend the 'tongues' used by the Pentecostals, why you would attempt to alter what we are offered. You are trying to indicate that upon reception of the Holy Spirit DELIVERED directly by CHRIST, that those that went out and exhibited the gift of tongues DIDN'T even MENTION Christ, but instead, simply repeated knowledge already possessed by those of other languages that heard them. That's LUDICROUS and you know it. If the gift was the Holy Spirit PROMISED to be delivered by Christ, (they were all waiting as INSTRUCTED by Christ), then the obvious PURPOSE for the gift of tongues was to expound upon the GOSPEL of Christ. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. No need to offer a GIFT in order to tell people what they ALREADY KNOW.

Peter spoke up to explain what was happening to those that didn't UNDERSTAND. Those that HEARD speech in their own language didn't NEED Peter to explain. No indication that everyone there spoke Aramaic. So Peter would have been addressing those accusing them of being DRUNK. Those that DIDN'T understand. Those that HEARD other speak in their own language would certain have understood what they were saying.

So the problem we have with seeing the Diaspora Jews as having “recognised the Truth” is that their confessed confusion and bewilderment along with the content of the words that the 120 were speaking (being of praise) gives us no reason to see this Spirit driven event as being evangelistic.

Once again, I disagree. You are trying to place them ALL in the same perspective but the scripture speak otherwise. SOME accused them of being 'drunk' while other understood them PERFECTLY.

As I’ve mentioned before, the first obstacle to the view that tongues can be used to communicate to the unsaved, at least within the congregational setting is that Paul made no allowance for the possibility of any man being able to understand what the Spirit is saying when he prays to the Father through us (1Cor 14:2; 9-13). The second point is that we have no evidence from within the Word where the Spirit has ever done this for anyone, be it a Believer or unbeliever.

And I contend that it is utter misunderstanding that has led to what you offer. I have already pointed out where the Bible DOES explain that the ONLY purpose of the 'gift of tongues' is FOR the 'non believer'. You have simply chosen to ignore the context of what has been offered in FAVOR of practicing something that doesn't exist in TRUTH. There are NO 'gibberish tongues' that can produce ANYTHING except 'self edification'. Speaking in such a manner is of the FLESH, not of the SPIRIT. True tongues, LANGUAGES, so far as the 'gift of the Spirit' can ONLY be spoken AS the Spirit GIVES utterance. And ONLY for the purpose of EDIFICATION of the BODY. NEVER for personal edification. The Spirit does not perform contrary to the TRUTH. Therefore it is NOT the Spirit that gives utterance to 'gibberish' for there is NO edification of the Body in that which isn't UNDERSTOOD.


As a Pentecostal, with all my reading over the years from many of the best commentaries and academic papers that discuss both the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and with tongues; on the odd occasion I do come across a commentator who makes mention that Paul does not bother to concern himself (or us) with defining what may or may not be true tongues or that the source of these tongues are able to be falsified. This silence on Pauls part is somewhat remarkable in that he does not even bother to discuss the possibility of a visitor who could come in pretending to provide a tongue, where they are maybe speaking Farsi (Persian) which maybe one or two in the congregation might know. Even though the Corinthians knew (either before or after Paul’s First Epistle to them) that the Spirit will always direct his words to the Father and never to man, a skilled practitioner could still include an element of heresy to trick the people into thinking a certain way; but, as we can see from the Scriptures, these things apparently don’t concern him.

Oh my. What more did he need to offer except to lay out the TRUTH of tongues so that what they doing could be compared to the TRUTH? He explained that to speak in words impossible to understand was like speaking to the air. Are you suggesting that there is edification to the Body by speaking to the air in a manner impossible to understand? He then goes on to STATE that he had rather speak FIVE words of understanding than 10,000 words that can't be understood. One, two or NO MORE than THREE in a gathering and by COURSE, (in order. you know, like ONE and THEN another and THEN another). and it is IMPOSSIBLE for women to speak tongues IN THE CHURCH as the Spirit gives utterance. And then he begs that ANYONE that is even Spiritual to openly agree that what he offered were the COMMANDMENTS of God. Not just suggestion or advice, but his instruction was offered DIRECTLY from the inspiration of the HOLY SPIRIT: God.
You've already agreed that the ENTIRE letter to the Corinthians was a letter of REBUKE. Yet you would take Paul's rebuke of those misusing tongues as evidence that they exist and SHOULD be USED??????? He TELLS them: Grow up and STOP seeking 'self edification' after pointing out that what they were doing produced ONLY 'self edification'. he didn't need to say STOP. The obviousness is: if EVERYTHING that one does is to be done through LOVE for the purpose of edification of the BODY, anything contrary to this purpose is WRONG. I don't need to say, "Hey if you touch that it's going to burn you really really bad". To the average person, "Hey, that's HOT" is certainly enough information to inform others DON'T TOUCH IT.
What you have offered is exactly what caused the 'hard headedness' of the Hebrews/Jews: if God doesn't outright SAY: Don't DO IT. Then we can work around the LAW. If you are told to DO something a specific way, it does NOT need to be offered to those with understanding that to do it differently is WRONG.

Even with prophecy, where the Holy Spirit always speaks to the congregation in their local language, Paul does not bother to discuss the possibility that someone will pretend to provide a message when the agent of the message is none other than the person who could be trying to insert a false doctrine. All Paul tells us 14:29 is that the rest of the congregation is to judge the prophecy and nothing else.

But Paul did warn against false prophecy. MANY times. Just not in the context pertaining to the misuse of gifts in the book of 1 Corinthians. That wasn't the POINT. The point was that prophecy, offered through the Spirit was WAY more important than the 'gift of tongues'.

As for any suggestion that Paul was being gentle with the Corinthians, a quick perusal through chapter 14 is nothing less than a testimony of where he was slowly dragging them across the hot coals so to speak. Even his opening paragraph on the “spiritual matters” in 12:1, shows that he considers the proud Corinthians to be deficient both with their knowledge and with their apparent lack of love towards the unsaved visitors who might be in their midst.

You only propose PART of the message. The part you have chosen to leave out or omit is that part that expounds upon the CHURCH to focus on that which brings edification TO the 'church' instead of practicing that which brings about ONLY 'self edification'. There is NO 'true love' in that which brings ONLY self edification. And we are implored to focus on LOVE instead of 'childish things', (spiritual gifts whether REAL or false).
If I tell you that 'spiritual gifts' bring NO edification to the Body. And then tell you to focus on that which DOES bring edification to the Body. I shouldn't NEED to offer any more for you to UNDERSTAND that what I'm saying is to STOP doing that which brings about ONLY 'self edification'. I've already offered that understanding to those with the ability TO understand.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

And how does one that professes to 'speak in tongues' so far as 'gibberish' is concerned, deal with this contradiction:

I have BEEN to Pentecostal Churches. And in EVERY ONE that I have personally visited, the majority of those that 'speak in tongues' are WOMEN, speaking at the SAME time, without an interpreter, IN THE CHURCH.

How is that possible? When all of the standards so far as the RULES laid out by Paul are being ignored or in reality, contradicted?
Is it possible for the Spirit to do that which is contrary to the commandments of God? Is it possible for the Spirit to DO that which is contrary to ITSELF?
And these women insist that the tongues that the speak IN THE CHURCH are the same tongues that they speak when alone. The SOUND and the INSPIRATION is the SAME.
Yet Paul plainly states, when discussing the issue of tongues SPECIFICALLY, that women are to remain SILENT in the Church. And then states that anyone that is Spiritual must ADMIT that they TOO recognize this as the COMMANDMENT of God.
So, are the tongues being spoken that are being performed in direct contradiction to the rules laid out by Paul TRUE tongues? And if you believe that they are, explain HOW they are a contradiction to Paul's instruction but it's OK to do so ANYWAY.
And I've also witnessed pastors themselves speaking in 'gibberish' that they insist are 'tongues' between speaking in ENGLISH. You know, muttering 'gibberish' while speaking to the congregation. NO interpreter. NO message whatsoever. Just mumbling 'gibberish' between coherent statements. This is in utter contradiction to Paul's instruction of the PROPER use of tongues. And then, I suppose that I am suppose to believe that the congregation are BELIEVERS, yet Paul states that 'tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that BELIEVE NOT'. So, are the members of the congregation to be looked upon as NON believers? For the tongues spoken are certainly NOT a sign to them that believe. Not if they are TRUE tongues as defined by Paul.
And if the tongues, (gibberish), being spoken IN the 'church' by women is NOT 'true tongues' as the Spirit gives utterance, yet the SAME tongues that they speak unto themselves, how does one propose that ONE is a MISUSE of the tongues and the other TRUE tongues?????
If tongues are NOT understood by the speaker or those hearing them, they are NOT 'tongues' as given utterance BY The Spirit. So that means that they MUST be inspired by a DIFFERENT spirit.

Blessings,
MEC

 

[Hillsage]

Imagician, this is one of those posts that do not require a reply as it contains a fair amount of material that in my view is best considered and digested over a period of time.

You see how long that recomendation lasted. He is still wanting answers to things that have been answered multiple times by either one, or both of us IMO. Such is the dilemma of dealing with those who are "unlearned" and yet kicking 'against' us and what we believe. Though I've noticed a 'bit' of softening in 'how' he's posting with you, and that is good.

But, for the most part scripture actually does deal with how we should handle the "unspiritual brethren" I know that sounds harsh, but it is simply bible.

1CO 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant/agnoeo.

This verse is speaking to 'the brethren' the 'church' those WITH and those WITHOUT, concerning the things we believe and 'do'. And when they are continually proving they are disinclined to listen to us, what does scripture say?

1CO 14:38 But if any man be ignorant/agnoeo, let him be ignorant.

0050 agnoeo: not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by impl. to ignore (through disinclination)

They don't want 'to know' and many obviously have the 'disinclination' to stay that way because 'we're wrong'. So there comes a point where you keep these pearls in your pocket IMO. I've really cast too many away over the years here IMO.

I would be more inclined to say that they all would have heard them speaking in a manner that was certainly disjointed and stilted. Even though the Spirit had chosen to speak through them in known human languages, it would have been impossible for the 120 to correctly employ voice inflections or to insert pauses where we automatically insert appropriate pauses between certain words.

And, as I've share, I believe the 120 got 'spirit tongues' 'unknown to any man' first and then immediately upon drawing the crowd with their spirit's tongue, The Spirit moved UPON them to speak tongue's known to man.

Their speech would certainly have sounded robotic where many would have wondered if these rustic Galileans were drunk and simply repeating rehearsed disjointed sentences.

What an interesting opinion. But I've never heard that from any testimony concerning those who've manifested tongues from THE Holy Spirit, whom I would assume knows the inflections as well as the words He is manifesting through the vessel that is yielded for such purposes.

And the verse which always gets used to say we shouldn't pray in tongues or sing in tongues from our spirit which no man understands, I only have this to say;

1CO 14:16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

I have been in groups where all prayed in tongues, or where we all sang in tongues. Haven't you? NO! I did not understand the words, mine nor theirs, but it didn't matter because none of us was "unlearned". And even those times where it happened with those who were "unlearned" amongst us, they usually went to our Charismatic churches, homegroups and were 'inclined' to want to speak in tongues but were unable to do so. And as I've share before with jaiol ministry. When the English speaking Mexicans suddenly close in prayer in Spanish should I rebuke them with this same verse used against us. I think Paul would say "Heaven forbid!" But that's just my opinion.

 

[Biblicist]

You only propose PART of the message. The part you have chosen to leave out or omit is that part that expounds upon the CHURCH to focus on that which brings edification TO the 'church' instead of practicing that which brings about ONLY 'self edification'. There is NO 'true love' in that which brings ONLY self edification. And we are implored to focus on LOVE instead of 'childish things', (spiritual gifts whether REAL or false).
If I tell you that 'spiritual gifts' bring NO edification to the Body. And then tell you to focus on that which DOES bring edification to the Body. I shouldn't NEED to offer any more for you to UNDERSTAND that what I'm saying is to STOP doing that which brings about ONLY 'self edification'. I've already offered that understanding to those with the ability TO understand.

Blessings,

MEC

I will refer you back to my last couple of posts.

 

[Biblicist]

And how does one that professes to 'speak in tongues' so far as 'gibberish' is concerned, deal with this contradiction:

I have BEEN to Pentecostal Churches. And in EVERY ONE that I have personally visited, the majority of those that 'speak in tongues' are WOMEN, speaking at the SAME time, without an interpreter, IN THE CHURCH.

For those who are egalitarians then the passage obviously has its own set of tensions but for the astute complementarian who is a Continuist, then Grudems indepth work on this question back in 1987 (The Gift of Prophecy) has become the so-called ‘game changer’. [Google any terms that you are unfamiliar with.]

For the Continuist who understands the things of the Spirit, most had realised for decades that Paul was not forbidding women from praying, praying in the Spirit (tongues) or from prophesying within the congregational setting. This particular passage has always been a bit of a thorn for complementarians such as myself but as Grudem (and others since) have pointed out, what he was forbidding was that a woman could not judge the content of a congregational prophecy as this was the role of the men within the assembly.

As for the notion that only women all sing in the Spirit at once, this also applies to males as well but I have already addressed this point in some detail in my previous posts.

How is that possible? When all of the standards so far as the RULES laid out by Paul are being ignored or in reality, contradicted?
Is it possible for the Spirit to do that which is contrary to the commandments of God? Is it possible for the Spirit to DO that which is contrary to ITSELF?

As I’ve mentioned previously, it does seem that “the RULES” you speak of are not of the Spirit or Paul but with how you understand things. I asked you earlier (with no reply) that your faith icon has you as a ‘Christian-seeker’ which is a pseudonym for someone who is a non-Christian; if this is the case then your reliance on pre-70’s style cessationist ‘cut-and-paste’ objections makes some sense.

As I’ve most likely addressed your other concerns elsewhere in this thread then for the time being I will leave it at that.

 

[Biblicist]

You see how long that recomendation lasted. He is still wanting answers to things that have been answered multiple times by either one, or both of us IMO. Such is the dilemma of dealing with those who are "unlearned" and yet kicking 'against' us and what we believe. Though I've noticed a 'bit' of softening in 'how' he's posting with you, and that is good.

But, for the most part scripture actually does deal with how we should handle the "unspiritual brethren" I know that sounds harsh, but it is simply bible.

1CO 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant/agnoeo.

This verse is speaking to 'the brethren' the 'church' those WITH and those WITHOUT, concerning the things we believe and 'do'. And when they are continually proving they are disinclined to listen to us, what does scripture say?

1CO 14:38 But if any man be ignorant/agnoeo, let him be ignorant.

0050 agnoeo: not to know (through lack of information or intelligence); by impl. to ignore (through disinclination)

They don't want 'to know' and many obviously have the 'disinclination' to stay that way because 'we're wrong'. So there comes a point where you keep these pearls in your pocket IMO. I've really cast too many away over the years here IMO.

As you have covered it pretty well then I need not add my bit in.

And, as I've share, I believe the 120 got 'spirit tongues' 'unknown to any man' first and then immediately upon drawing the crowd with their spirit's tongue, The Spirit moved UPON them to speak tongue's known to man.

Your perspective I will grant is certainly unique.

What an interesting opinion. But I've never heard that from any testimony concerning those who've manifested tongues from THE Holy Spirit, whom I would assume knows the inflections as well as the words He is manifesting through the vessel that is yielded for such purposes.

For most of us (if not all), it’s not something that we really think about and I suppose why should we.

I need to say that this “robotic” syntax only applies to the Day of Pentecost (or with similar occurrences) where we have the Spirit speaking words of praise to the Father in a human language that they do not know and where others who speak the language are present. But this type of tongues only occurs on the rarest of occasions and probably only within unreached people groups so I never expect to hear the Spirit speaking in this manner.

As I’ve mentioned on this thread (somewhere), when we are in a prayer group where all are singing/praying in the Spirit, this will generally result in a harmonious sound where we all come to the realisation that the Spirit of God is indeed amongst us.

It tends to be one of those things that becomes a product of deliberations on the Day of Pentecost where we can add in more than a century of observation regarding how the various language groups pray in the Spirit. For instance, its been observed that East Asian Christians who have no knowledge of a European language will (always?) pray in the Spirit where their prayer will sound East Asian. And from my exposure since the 70’s I will acknowledge that I’ve never heard an Anglo/European praying in the Spirit where their prayer language sounds anything like an East Asian language.

So to those who spoke Latin, Greek, Farsi or whatever, even though the Spirit would have spoken through the Galileans using the right words, he definately would not have forced/compelled/led them to apply the correct voice inflections or to use appropriate gaps between particular lines of thought. We can add to this that anyone who prays in the Spirit can easily insert a break when they are distracted or even when we sneeze. The whole event must have sounded very strange but in spite of this it at least grabbed their attention where Peter was able to insert an evangelistic message.

I have been in groups where all prayed in tongues, or where we all sang in tongues. Haven't you? NO! I did not understand the words, mine nor theirs, but it didn't matter because none of us was "unlearned". And even those times where it happened with those who were "unlearned" amongst us, they usually went to our Charismatic churches, homegroups and were 'inclined' to want to speak in tongues but were unable to do so. And as I've share before with jaiol ministry. When the English speaking Mexicans suddenly close in prayer in Spanish should I rebuke them with this same verse used against us. I think Paul would say "Heaven forbid!" But that's just my opinion.

Being amongst a number of Believers especially within a prayer group where all are singing praises to the Lord is in my view nothing less than wonderful, this is where we really understand that God is among us.

As for "those who are unlearned", Paul is probably not referring to any unsaved or cessationist visitors, but with all those Believers who are present in that we become the "unlearned" merely because we cannot understand what is being said to the Father. This changes when someone provides a word to the Lord that is intended to be interpreted, where we the "unlearned" then become edified.

 

[emekrus]

Being amongst a number of Believers especially within a prayer group where all are singing praises to the Lord is in my view nothing less than wonderful, this is where we really understand that God is among us.

As for "those who are unlearned", Paul is probably not referring to any unsaved or cessationist visitors, but with all those Believers who are present in that we become the "unlearned" merely because we cannot understand what is being said to the Father. This changes when someone provides a word to the Lord that is intended to be interpreted, where we the "unlearned" then become edified.

I think the correct interpretation will be the unsaved, the cessationist, and unlearned believers (concerning tongues).

But even when such categories of people come into the church, and hear people worshiping and praying to God in Tongues, the Tongues would have fulfilled one of it's purpose which is being a 'sign' to the unbelievers.

Sometime back, as I mediated on the use of tongues, the word that came to my heart was, let all things be done to edification. So if everyone in the Church, worship and pray to God (in Tongues) for the purpose of individual edification then there is no abuse.

You know, abuse is the misplacement of purpose. Or using something against the purpose for which its meant. But if everyone in the Church, uses tongues for personal edification then the purpose is realized.

On the other hand it will be abuse, if the Teacher, Preacher or any member of the Church, in the period of teaching or exhortation, just speak in Tongues without any interpretation.

But if the preacher or teacher, speaks in tongue in between sermon, and gives the Interpretation, in the form of insight, then the purpose is met.

 

[Biblicist]

I think the correct interpretation will be the unsaved, the cessationist, and unlearned believers (concerning tongues).

Okay.

But even when such categories of people come into the church, and hear people worshiping and praying to God in Tongues, the Tongues would have fulfilled one of it's purpose which is being a 'sign' to the unbelievers.

If you go back through my posts who will see where I have addressed this point but to summarise, when Paul speaks of the sign value of tongues, this is in the negative sense in that uninterpreted tongues will generally become a stumbling block for the unsaved and with many cessationists.

Sometime back, as I mediated on the use of tongues, the word that came to my heart was, let all things be done to edification. So if everyone in the Church, worship and pray to God (in Tongues) for the purpose of individual edification then there is no abuse.

You know, abuse is the misplacement of purpose. Or using something against the purpose for which its meant. But if everyone in the Church, uses tongues for personal edification then the purpose is realized.

In 1 Cor 14 Paul goes into some detail by explaining that the congregational use of tongues is absolutely not intended for personal edification/satisfaction where this type of situation must be avoided at all costs.

 

[Hillsage]

I think the correct interpretation will be the unsaved, the cessationist, and unlearned believers (concerning tongues).

I have to agree with you Emekrus and not with Biblicist (Sorry B ). I don't think that a charismatic can be considered an "unlearned" one in the context or in the Greek definition.

But even when such categories of people come into the church, and hear people worshiping and praying to God in Tongues, the Tongues would have fulfilled one of it's purpose which is being a 'sign' to the unbelievers.

If by "unbelievers" you're including Christian brethren who don't believe in 'tongues' I'd agree. But it just is not 'edifying' to them. And that's why even the unlearned Christians "will call you mad." Or they might say you're speaking in the non biblical terms of babble and gibberish.

Sometime back, as I mediated on the use of tongues, the word that came to my heart was, let all things be done to edification. So if everyone in the Church, worship and pray to God (in Tongues) for the purpose of individual edification then there is no abuse.

I agree and I think that's backed up with the following verse.


1CO 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

Based upon what I see this saying; If you are fellowshipping with a group of believers and you know they all "speak in tongue" then it is OK for all to do so. But if you have unlearned/believers and/or a unsaved/unbelievers" come in to your 'setting', then 'that' would be out of order.

You know, abuse is the misplacement of purpose. Or using something against the purpose for which its meant. But if everyone in the Church, uses tongues for personal edification then the purpose is realized.

I agree. And that POV also agrees with my jail ministry experience of allowing the English speaking Mexican to speak Spanish when I asked him to close in prayer.

On the other hand it will be abuse, if the Teacher, Preacher or any member of the Church, in the period of teaching or exhortation, just speak in Tongues without any interpretation.

But if the preacher or teacher, speaks in tongue in between sermon, and gives the Interpretation, in the form of insight, then the purpose is met.

That all 'works' for me. But something else that works for me is 'singing in tongues' in a non Charismatic fundamental cessasionist church I've visited several times. But I never sing loud enough that, the guy I always sit next to, even knows I'm doing it.

 

[emekrus]

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?

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)

 

[Hillsage]

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 wouldn't say "silently" I'd say, like I did, 'quietly'.

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)

You will not be led by your spirit to quench "the Spirit". Your, holy born again spirit, will be 'one' with whatever the Spirit is wanting to do. And the only time you can 'quench the Spirit' is if He unctions you to do something, and you do not do it.

This happened to me in my first year as a Charismatic when I strongly felt like I was to give a tongue from The Spirit to the rather large home group of brethren. I simply could...or would..not do it. Why? Fear that the person who would get the 'gift of interpretation' might not give it and I'd look dumb. Or maybe it was just a lack of faith on my part, or maybe a little of both.