SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[Presbyterian Continuist]

From what I see in 1 Corinthians 14, if the gift of tongues is to be used out loud in a church meeting there needs to be an interpreter. I think we all agree on that. If people are running around willy nilly speaking in tongues without interpretation, then that is disorder, and I have genuine doubts as to whether these people are speaking in the type of tongues that Paul is advocating. People would be forgiven for thinking that these people are just speaking a whole lot of gobbledegook in the flesh, which they are if they are disobeying the Word of God which contains God's will in the use of the gift of tongues. When people depart from God's will and speak in tongues their own way (ignoring the teaching of Scripture) then the Holy Spirit cannot be motivating them.

But Paul also spoke about tongues being spoken privately before God. Now, if a person is doing that, who is there to hear and judge that person? Can an outsider say to that person that what he is speaking is false or in the flesh? If the person is practicing the gift in private in keeping with the Scripture teaching, and is using faith before God, then God can be the only judge of it. No one else can enter the sanctity of that person's private prayer room and interfere with the relationship between the person and his God. So, if that person chooses to speak in a language he has never learned and is making up in faith, believing that God is hearing and understanding him, then we cannot say that person is not exercising the Biblical gift of tongues....can we?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Uh- I presume you mean interpreter.

And one point made earlier: the Bible tells us on several occasions to test the spirits- so if you have two independent interpreters, you should get the same interpretation, right?

So if I record the message of someone who claims to be speaking in tongues, and have it "interpreted" by two or more different independent interpreters, I should get the same translated message, right?

Or I could do another test- record someone claiming to be speaking in tongues- and then ask an interpreter to tell me what was said while, without their knowledge, recording the answer. Then have them listen to the same tongue speaking a month later and see if they come up with the same answer.


.

Interpretation does not always mean direct translation, otherwise Paul would have used "translation".

A direct interpretation of the tongue would have to be directed toward God, because speaking in tongues is speaking to God, whether it be public or private.

Often, an out loud statement in tongues can be an intercessory prayer for the Holy Spirit to move in prophecy in the meeting. This explains why there are tongues "messages" followed by prophetic interpretations. These are not direct interpretations of the tongue, but prophetic messages to the congregation in response to the intercessory prayer to God to allow the Holy Spirit to break into the flow of the meeting to speak prophetically to the meeting.

It is always best to keep to the Scripture teaching on tongues, because the teaching reflects the will of God in how He wants the Holy Spirit to move and speak in a meeting. There is an instruction that prophecy should be evaluated in terms of content, but there is nothing in Scripture to validate the action of applying tests to the faith actions of other Christians who are exercising what they believe are the gifts of the Spirit. This would be to me getting outside of the will of God and doing something based on your own will.

The Scripture does not support a person who is not part of the membership of a church to test the genuineness of the faith of members of that church. It is the role of the leadership of the church that is practicing the gifts of tongues and prophecy to evaluate whether their members are exercising their gifts in a genuine way and in an appropriate manner.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Those who issued untrue prophecies (false prophets) were killed in the Old Testament days. What did they do to those who failed the interpretation test?

.

Who is qualified to apply the test? The New Testament prophetic is quite different from Old Testament prophecy, even though some try to give old testament style prophecies and pass them off as NT ones (which incidentally would be of the flesh and not of the Spirit). If I heard some person getting up and giving a long involved OT type prophecy, I would get up and say that we can all safely ignore that one!!! Actually, if people are taught the prophetic correctly, they would know which prophecies to accept and which ones to ignore. Actually, long involved prophecies given in Elizabethan English are usually forgotten before the speaker has finished speaking!

 

[zeke37]

But Zeke you fail to see that Pauls description of NO ONE, FIRST, colors any understanding of the latter statements. THAT IS THE WAY THAT GREEK WORKS.

as it would in English and most all other languages too....

if I spoke Hebrew to a Greek audience,
then no one would understand.
that is all he is saying...
and he repeats that teaching over and over again

You do not say: oh the first statement doesnt jive with what I think the rest says . . . that is the INVERSE to the way that Greek works.

Paul further explains exactly what he means...as I repeatedly post.

he uses repetition to drive home the point



7And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.



11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else 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?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.


21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


23If 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?

24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.


33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Any subsequent concept that does not take the FIRST statement into its logical in meaning IS IN ERROR. IF any given interpretation of a subsequent verse does not deal appropriately with the FIRST statement, then that interpretation is WRONG. THAT IS GREEK.

You have FAILED to work NO ONE into your concepts within the text.

well, I disagree...Paul spoke many langauges/tongues


in this case it is a coloquial (commoner) greek and was telling them that
if they spoke greek to an audience who did not understand greek, then no one but God would understand...

Sorry zeke, the greek is quite easy for anyone to understand in this section.

obviously not everyone..
but I am not arguing over the greek definition of the word..
it is used much the same way we would use it today in our language/tongue...or most any other...

speek chineese to a russian audience and no one would understand you.

hence all of these rules for spreading the Word into all tongues.

It says that no one understand a tongues utterance, and that is exactly what it means.

to each their own I guess...

There is nothing more to add to that. Regurgitating your opinion on these matters in an attempt to sidestep Paul's teaching on it, only shows your anger against this gift.

lol...i don't sidestep...I point them out to the likes of you and Mat,
who seem to ignore his repetition on the matter

try, with an open mind, to read the chapter in the light I paint...
see if it makes sense to you...just consider it honestly

and i am certainly not against any Gift of God including the gift of Diversities of languages...


but the charismatic/ecstatic utterances called "tongues" in some circles, are not that gift..and are not ever the subject of 1Cor14

so while I am against what you do,
I am most certainly not against the gifts of God,
nor you yourself Bro.

just your practice and teaching of it.

Satan is a tricky one...
I see that he has taken away (from some believers)
the actual meaning of the scriptures,
and replaced it with your practice, a tradition...
making void the Words of God...

and he has also taken away your intimate prayer time with God
and turned it into an unintelligent, feel good, emotional, self-satisfying sideshow. chanting

you love it and I think it is a shame...go figure.

 

[ARBITER01]

lol...i don't sidestep...I point them out to the likes of you and Mat, who seem to ignore his repetition on the matter try, with an open mind, to read the chapter in the light I paint...
see if it makes sense to you...just consider it honestly and i am certainly not against any Gift of God including the gift of Diversities of languages...


but the charismatic/ecstatic utterances called "tongues" in some circles, are not that gift..and are not ever the subject of 1Cor14

so while I am against what you do,
I am most certainly not against the gifts of God,
nor you yourself Bro.

just your practice and teaching of it.

Satan is a tricky one...
I see that he has taken away (from some believers)
the actual meaning of the scriptures,
and replaced it with your practice, a tradition...
making void the Words of God...

and he has also taken away your intimate prayer time with God
and turned it into an unintelligent, feel good, emotional, self-satisfying sideshow. chanting

you love it and I think it is a shame...go figure.

Your so-called ideas about what the gifts of The Spirit are simply your own concoctions, not something that is described in any established church over the years that have operated in them. You have a carnal thinking about it, that's what it basically boils down to.

Spiritual gifts are Spiritually operated, not fleshly talents that a person can claim later on once they learn them, just like Paul said here,..

1Co 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Speaking in tongues has always been a Spiritual gift, and there is nothing in our bible describing it any differently here than how Paul taught.

Sorry zeke, but you are just trying to assert your own personal ideas about what you think this gift is instead of rightly dividing the word on it.

 

[zeke37]

Your so-called ideas about what the gifts of The Spirit are simply your own concoctions, not something that is described in any established church over the years that have operated in them. You have a carnal thinking about it, that's what it basically boils down to.

most all early churches held to what I understand...
spreading the Word of God and wonders of Christ into most all langauges/tongues

and many still do today, ever seen any outreach mission footage??

Spiritual gifts are Spiritually operated, not fleshly talents that a person can claim later on once they learn them, just like Paul said here,..

I guess you have your idea of what a Gift of God is for,
and I have mine.

what Paul meant is obviously still up for debate...
speak a langauge that the audience cannot understand
and then only God would understand you....
what is in your mind,your understanding of Prophesy that you were trying to teach them,
would be a mystery.

Speaking in tongues has always been a Spiritual gift, and there is nothing in our bible describing it any differently here than how Paul taught.

I never said anything different...we disagree on what that Gift is.
It takes a Gift of God to properly spread His Word into new tongues/language and nations
WHOLE NATIONS...WOW!!!!!!
It even happened in English, so we can today communicate with It.

Sorry zeke, but you are just trying to assert your own personal ideas about what you think this gift is instead of rightly dividing the word on it.

actually I am not...I am intelligently dividing the Word and learning it's true menaing with regards to tongues.
But feel free to do what ever you want...
if you wanna be ignorant, so be it.

realize that your tradition makes void the Word of God...
because ecstatic/charismatic utterances are never Paul's subject here...ever.

but have fun with your counterfeit gift.

 

[ARBITER01]

actually I am not...I am intelligently dividing the Word and learning it's true menaing with regards to tongues.
But feel free to do what ever you want...
if you wanna be ignorant, so be it.

realize that your tradition makes void the Word of God...
because ecstatic/charismatic utterances are never Paul's subject here...ever.

but have fun with your counterfeit gift.

Sorry zeke, we speak mystery's by The Spirit that require interpretation, not natural languages. The scriptures are quite clear for anyone to see, and those of us already gifted in this area of our lives are not about to somehow waver at your suggestions.

And just so you know, the gift of tongues in it's current form that you despise will continue to grow to even greater numbers among Christians. If it wasn't of GOD, it would disappear, but it is of GOD, and thereby growing. Do the math my friend.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

as it would in English and most all other languages too....

if I spoke Hebrew to a Greek audience,
then no one would understand.
that is all he is saying...
and he repeats that teaching over and over again


Paul further explains exactly what he means...as I repeatedly post.

he uses repetition to drive home the point



7And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?

8For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?

9So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.



11Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else 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?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.


21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


23If 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?

24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.


33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


36What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

well, I disagree...Paul spoke many langauges/tongues


in this case it is a coloquial (commoner) greek and was telling them that
if they spoke greek to an audience who did not understand greek, then no one but God would understand...



obviously not everyone..
but I am not arguing over the greek definition of the word..
it is used much the same way we would use it today in our language/tongue...or most any other...

speek chineese to a russian audience and no one would understand you.

hence all of these rules for spreading the Word into all tongues.


to each their own I guess...


lol...i don't sidestep...I point them out to the likes of you and Mat,
who seem to ignore his repetition on the matter

try, with an open mind, to read the chapter in the light I paint...
see if it makes sense to you...just consider it honestly

and i am certainly not against any Gift of God including the gift of Diversities of languages...


but the charismatic/ecstatic utterances called "tongues" in some circles, are not that gift..and are not ever the subject of 1Cor14

so while I am against what you do,
I am most certainly not against the gifts of God,
nor you yourself Bro.

just your practice and teaching of it.

Satan is a tricky one...
I see that he has taken away (from some believers)
the actual meaning of the scriptures,
and replaced it with your practice, a tradition...
making void the Words of God...

and he has also taken away your intimate prayer time with God
and turned it into an unintelligent, feel good, emotional, self-satisfying sideshow. chanting

you love it and I think it is a shame...go figure.

Paul further explains exactly what he means...as I repeatedly post.

Your "further" ONLY WORKS IF OUDEIS DOESNT MEAN EVERYONE . . . your "futher" does NOT fall inline with the OUDEIS.

You have TRIED to make it by claiming that the speaker is the understood exception . . . BUT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE WORD. There is NO contextual reason in the immediate surrounding logic to think that there are ANY exceptions to the OUDEIS. NONE.

in this case it is a coloquial (commoner) greek and was telling them that
if they spoke greek to an audience who did not understand greek, then no one but God would understand

It is KOINE and oudeis doesnt change per colloquial usage dude. Your own statement:

if they spoke greek to an audience who did not understand greek

Is a concept you derive from vs 6-12 . . . the problem is that OUDEIS PRECEDES ANY CONCEPT OF THIS . . . you must import the understanding of "NO ONE" INTO verse 6-12. You have done the inverse. You import 6-12 INTO verse 2 . . . but that is NOT the way that Greek works.

Again, you have failed to make oudeis work in your systematic. No one means NO ONE, speaker included. AND that, even in those who dont see tongues as ecstatic, IS UNDERSTOOD ACROSS THE BOARD. Early church and even cessationist alike see tongues as UNKNOWN TO THE SPEAKER . . . as a SUPERNATURAL IMPARTATION. Whether the tongue is known to the hearer or not is beside the point (at this point) . . . it is unknown to the speaker. Even someone who believes tongues are foreign languages KNOWS that the Apostles and the other 150 on Pentecost did not know the dialects that were heard, and thereby were ignorant of what they spoke.

No dice man, oudeis includes the speaker. Your inversal of the way that Greek works is not convincing.

 

[ARBITER01]

Your "further" ONLY WORKS IF OUDEIS DOESNT MEAN EVERYONE . . . your "futher" does NOT fall inline with the OUDEIS.

You have TRIED to make it by claiming that the speaker is the understood exception . . . BUT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE WORD. There is NO contextual reason in the immediate surrounding logic to think that there are ANY exceptions to the OUDEIS. NONE.



It is KOINE and oudeis doesnt change per colloquial usage dude. Your own statement:



Is a concept you derive from vs 6-12 . . . the problem is that OUDEIS PRECEDES ANY CONCEPT OF THIS . . . you must import the understanding of "NO ONE" INTO verse 6-12. You have done the inverse. You import 6-12 INTO verse 2 . . . but that is NOT the way that Greek works.

Again, you have failed to make oudeis work in your systematic. No one means NO ONE, speaker included. AND that, even in those who dont see tongues as ecstatic, IS UNDERSTOOD ACROSS THE BOARD. Early church and even cessationist alike see tongues as UNKNOWN TO THE SPEAKER . . . as a SUPERNATURAL IMPARTATION. Whether the tongue is known to the hearer or not is beside the point (at this point) . . . it is unknown to the speaker. Even someone who believes tongues are foreign languages KNOWS that the Apostles and the other 150 on Pentecost did not know the dialects that were heard, and thereby were ignorant of what they spoke.

No dice man, oudeis includes the speaker. Your inversal of the way that Greek works is not convincing.

Good explanation of an aspect of Greek usage for us.

Also, in light of what Paul taught in that section, the 120 in Acts 2 could not have known what they were uttering. There must of been one of two things going on, either some of those people were interpreting also, or GOD provided the understanding to those people around them to know.

We can't automatically say they were speaking known languages since that would make Paul out to be a liar in what he taught in 1 Corinthians. We do see Peter identifying the event as prophecy though,..

Act 2:16 but this is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel;

Act 2:17 And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams:

Act 2:18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.

Peter uses the OT to affirm the event, and that word of wisdom by Joel identified the event as prophecy, which I take to understand as tongues and interpretation happening together to equal that prophecy.

What do you think?

 

[Servant of Jesus]

If you haven't already done so, check out the speaking in tongues poll.

And please keep the discussion polite and uplifting so that we can all learn!

.

 

[zeke37]

Sorry zeke, we speak mystery's by The Spirit that require interpretation, not natural languages. The scriptures are quite clear for anyone to see, and those of us already gifted in this area of our lives are not about to somehow waver at your suggestions.

if they were quite clear for everyone to see,
then we would not be arguing it's meaning.

and again, I don't speak this just to you and Mat,
but to all who do not believe that what you do is a gift of God,
and for those who leave it as a possibility that what you do is a gift of God, but have questions...

the less in this practise the better.

And just so you know, the gift of tongues in it's current form that you despise will continue to grow to even greater numbers among Christians. If it wasn't of GOD, it would disappear, but it is of GOD, and thereby growing. Do the math my friend.

lol...if you want delusion,God will give it to you...
your's is circular reasoning...
everyone would agree if your statement was a fact.

Your "further" ONLY WORKS IF OUDEIS DOESNT MEAN EVERYONE . . . your "futher" does NOT fall inline with the OUDEIS.

the meaning of oudeis is not in question...
who odeis is relevant to, is in question.
the whole scripture explains the setting,
and we know that this letter is rules for all,
read in the church setting..
about sharing Psalms/scriptures/docrtine/revelation/interpretation of scriptures
into all languages...langauges...not special prayer.....


15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else 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?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

You have TRIED to make it by claiming that the speaker is the understood exception . . . BUT THAT IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE WORD. There is NO contextual reason in the immediate surrounding logic to think that there are ANY exceptions to the OUDEIS. NONE.

sure there is....speak Hebrew to a greek audience and no one would understand you.
simple.
you fail to realize Paul'ssetting,
and there being a presumed speaker...of Pslams/scriptures, etc.
for the edification of the audience/assembly

Just continue to read the chapter and see the same thought repeated over and over again...

It is KOINE and oudeis doesnt change per colloquial usage dude. Your own statement:

it is common, slang, figures of speech...that is the meaning of coloquial, and yes I know it was Koine Greek...coloquial Koine Greek.

you or I could say the exact same thing in English...
speak English to a french audience and no one understands your words...

I know this is true,
because of the repetition in the rest of the chapter,
about the same thing.
over and over again,
regardless of what you practice.

Is a concept you derive from vs 6-12 . . . the problem is that OUDEIS PRECEDES ANY CONCEPT OF THIS . . . you must import the understanding of "NO ONE" INTO verse 6-12. You have done the inverse. You import 6-12 INTO verse 2 . . . but that is NOT the way that Greek works.

well Bro...we are at an impass it seems...as we were years ago..
and I do not get it from just those verses at all...
but the entire message...
just above I showed that it is seen in verses 15-17

Again, you have failed to make oudeis work in your systematic. No one means NO ONE, speaker included.

not if he, the speaker, is speaking to the audience
the wonderful works of God...
but if he is doing so in a tongue that they cannot understand...
then he is to wait for a translater/interpreter
to help him get the Word to the masses in attendance.
if none is available, then he is not to speak to them, because that would cause confusion...

19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

AND that, even in those who dont see tongues as ecstatic, IS UNDERSTOOD ACROSS THE BOARD. Early church and even cessationist alike see tongues as UNKNOWN TO THE SPEAKER . . . as a SUPERNATURAL IMPARTATION.

says you....the mere fact that we can discuss the Word in English
is proof of my stance...
Paul never taught ecstatic/charismatic utterances...ever
he taught about different languages that the Word would go into...
and how we can do so without confusing matters...
if we cannot do it ourselves, then use interpreters/translaters...
gifted ones that work for God.

Whether the tongue is known to the hearer or not is beside the point (at this point) . . . it is unknown to the speaker.

no it is not...
you say it is, but the chapter proves that it is not unknown to the speaker,
if the language is unknown to the audience, use an interpreter...

Even someone who believes tongues are foreign languages KNOWS that the Apostles and the other 150 on Pentecost did not know the dialects that were heard, and thereby were ignorant of what they spoke.

you have no way of proving that at all...
and we are not speaking of Petecost here, are we?
because that "tongue" is certainly not what you do.
that "tongue"was understood by everyone that heard it,
so when your practice shows those results, then we can talk.

No dice man, oudeis includes the speaker. Your inversal of the way that Greek works is not convincing.

it is convincing if you read the entire chapter and keep it relevant...


23If 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?
24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. (can't do that in tongues can ya????)
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

nothing about charismatic/ecstatic prayer tongues...sorry charlies.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

ARBITER01 and OSCARR (and anyone else who wishes to respond)- could I ask you three questions:

1. Why did Jesus not speak in tongues, or instruct His disciples to do so?

2. Do you think speaking in tongues is a salvation issue?

3. Do you think those who speak in tongues are "better" Christians?

With regard to the latter point, I have provided the example of a school in Canada (Pacific Academy) that bases admission on an applicant's parents ability to speak in tongues- how do you respond to that practice?

.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

if they were quite clear for everyone to see,
then we would not be arguing it's meaning.

and again, I don't speak this just to you and Mat,
but to all who do not believe that what you do is a gift of God,
and for those who leave it as a possibility that what you do is a gift of God, but have questions...

the less in this practise the better.


lol...if you want delusion,God will give it to you...
your's is circular reasoning...
everyone would agree if your statement was a fact.


the meaning of oudeis is not in question...
who odeis is relevant to, is in question.
the whole scripture explains the setting,
and we know that this letter is rules for all,
read in the church setting..
about sharing Psalms/scriptures/docrtine/revelation/interpretation of scriptures
into all languages...langauges...not special prayer.....


15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else 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?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.


sure there is....speak Hebrew to a greek audience and no one would understand you.
simple.
you fail to realize Paul'ssetting,
and there being a presumed speaker...of Pslams/scriptures, etc.
for the edification of the audience/assembly

Just continue to read the chapter and see the same thought repeated over and over again...


it is common, slang, figures of speech...that is the meaning of coloquial, and yes I know it was Koine Greek...coloquial Koine Greek.

you or I could say the exact same thing in English...
speak English to a french audience and no one understands your words...

I know this is true,
because of the repetition in the rest of the chapter,
about the same thing.
over and over again,
regardless of what you practice.


well Bro...we are at an impass it seems...as we were years ago..
and I do not get it from just those verses at all...
but the entire message...
just above I showed that it is seen in verses 15-17


not if he, the speaker, is speaking to the audience
the wonderful works of God...
but if he is doing so in a tongue that they cannot understand...
then he is to wait for a translater/interpreter
to help him get the Word to the masses in attendance.
if none is available, then he is not to speak to them, because that would cause confusion...

19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


says you....the mere fact that we can discuss the Word in English
is proof of my stance...
Paul never taught ecstatic/charismatic utterances...ever
he taught about different languages that the Word would go into...
and how we can do so without confusing matters...
if we cannot do it ourselves, then use interpreters/translaters...
gifted ones that work for God.




no it is not...
you say it is, but the chapter proves that it is not unknown to the speaker,
if the language is unknown to the audience, use an interpreter...


you have no way of proving that at all...
and we are not speaking of Petecost here, are we?
because that "tongue" is certainly not what you do.
that "tongue"was understood by everyone that heard it,
so when your practice shows those results, then we can talk.


it is convincing if you read the entire chapter and keep it relevant...


23If 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?
24But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth. (can't do that in tongues can ya????)
26How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

33For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

nothing about charismatic/ecstatic prayer tongues...sorry charlies.

the meaning of oudeis is not in question...
who odeis is relevant to, is in question.

Oudeis applies to the speaker as well because HE SPEAKS MYSTERIES IN THE SPIRIT.

Hence the UNDERSTANDING IS UNFRUITFUL . . . HIS UNDERSTANDING.

 

[ARBITER01]

ARBITER01 and OSCARR (and anyone else who wishes to respond)- could I ask you three questions:

1. Why did Jesus not speak in tongues, or instruct His disciples to do so?

2. Do you think speaking in tongues is a salvation issue?

3. Do you think those who speak in tongues are "better" Christians?

With regard to the latter point, I have provided the example of a school in Canada (Pacific Academy) that bases admission on an applicant's parents ability to speak in tongues- how do you respond to that practice?

.

1. I can only give you my opinion on it. Jesus, being fully GOD as much as The Father, did not require an edification aspect in human form like we do. We only receive a portion of The Holy Spirit inside of us when we are born again, we are not a divine being, so this particular gift is a help to our spiritual life and our walk with Him.

2. No it is not a salvation issue, and in fact, Peter states the gift of prophecy would be what we do upon salvation, not tongues. I prophesied the day after I was born again, but I had to seek tongues by prayer and fasting 6 months later. It was a personal choice of mine to seek GOD for the gift.

3. I wouldn't say better at all, just able to be closer in prayer with GOD. My understanding of scripture improved 10 fold after receiving the gift and operating in it for a while, as well as my faith was greatly strengthened. That's just to name a few things for me that improved after operating in the gift for a while.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm arriving a little late and I really have not had time to read the thread or closely examine the proof texts. I think I have a fairly unique view of the Pentecostal experience but that is not to say it's anything new. It will probably be a few weeks before I have time to do this subject justice but let me give you a brief and concise post outlining my position.

First of all Tongues are human languages, of the 13 nations mentioned in Acts 2 there were 11 languages spoken. Scholars have long held that each of the 11 apostles came out of the upper room each speaking the language of the ones being addressed. Bear in mind that attendance to this feast was mandatory under Levetical law, wherever the Jew were they were required to be in Jerusalem for this feast.

Secondly, tongues were being misused in the Corinthian church and I Corinthians should be understood in that light. Speaking in a language that no one understands defeats the purpose of a gift of the Holy Spirit and Paul makes the abundantly clear.

Thirdly, Pentecostalism is a relatively new movement and the New Testament indicates that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit are evidenced by the fruits of the Spirit, not the manifestations. This is far more significant then our Charismatic and Pentecostal brethren seem to realize, many facets of this movement require careful discernment.

On a personal note I get most of my theology from the same tradition Pentecostals come from and yes, you guys do too have a tradition and a theology. It's actually a very long tradition and a very sound theology. While I don't believe that this 'experience' is New Testament tongues this movement teems with New Testament believers and the largest body of lay ministers I am aware of being active in modern Christiandom.

I come here looking to open up a dialog, seek out the meaning of the Scriptures and enjoy the fellowship and mutual edification of this fascinating topic. Be patient, I am going through a transitional period right now but I have been in prayerful study on this topic for a long time and relish the opportunity to both learn and share from the many facets.

May all things be done unto edifying,
Mark

 

[ARBITER01]

First of all Tongues are human languages, of the 13 nations mentioned in Acts 2 there were 11 languages spoken. Scholars have long held that each of the 11 apostles came out of the upper room each speaking the language of the ones being addressed.

Ok,... so in your view, any atheist who knows a few languages could claim the gift of tongues from GOD.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

ARBITER01 and OSCARR (and anyone else who wishes to respond)- could I ask you three questions:

1. Why did Jesus not speak in tongues, or instruct His disciples to do so?

2. Do you think speaking in tongues is a salvation issue?

3. Do you think those who speak in tongues are "better" Christians?

With regard to the latter point, I have provided the example of a school in Canada (Pacific Academy) that bases admission on an applicant's parents ability to speak in tongues- how do you respond to that practice?

.

I read ARBITER's answer before I responded. He has answered the questions very well and I can add little to them.

But I will

Jesus did not need to speak in tongues because He had a totally open relationship with the Father. We don't have evidence for this but the language He used when praying to the Father might not have been Hebrew or Aramaic. We need tongues because we are not Jesus, the divine Son of God. We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to help us communicate with God, and tongues is one of the kit of spiritual tools to enable us to do that.

Tongues is not a salvation issue. Jesus is a complete Saviour in Himself. We are totally depraved and helpless when the Holy Spirit enabled us to come to Jesus. We can add nothing to our conversion to Christ except our faith in Christ, and even that is given to us from the Father through His unmerited grace. We are justified by faith, and the just shall live by faith. I don't know of any Scripture that supports that having the gift of tongues is essential to salvation.

I would assume that the school is a private Christian school that has an enrolment policy. I guess that they are doing nothing illegal by having an insistence that the parents of students need to be able to speak in tongues as a condition of enrolment. The school seems to put a high value on the gift of tongues, and having students brought up in an environment where tongues are a normal occurrence, then that saves a whole area of potential debate and conflict in the school.

It would be the same for a Roman Catholic school barring enrolment of students with Reformed Church parents who are rabidly anti-catholic. It would not be good for the student or the school by being enrolled.

Actually I could not understand why a student who had difficulties about the gift of tongues would want to enrol in a school where tongues was practiced in school chapel services and advocated and taught during religious studies sessions.

 

[zeke37]

Oudeis applies to the speaker as well because HE SPEAKS MYSTERIES IN THE SPIRIT.

Hence the UNDERSTANDING IS UNFRUITFUL . . . HIS UNDERSTANDING.

no...oudies does not apply to the speaker, because he is speaking to the audience...obviously he understands his own words...they are in his own tongue...


15What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.
16Else 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?
17For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.



19Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
21In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.


even English

 

[zeke37]

Ok,... so in your view, any atheist who knows a few languages could claim the gift of tongues from GOD.

no...a gift is used to further the Body....
an atheist would not do that.
but a believer would...

even whole nations can come to God with the right gifted persons.
that is what tongues is about, not a personal prayer language

Hebrew to Greek dialects, to Latin, to Old English, to our English....
to all languages

now I ask...what is more important to the Body?

a personal prayer language where the pray"er" does not even know what he thinks,
or
a gift that allows the spread of the Word of God into all nations and tongues...so that folks from all over the planet can understand and come to God???

 

[zeke37]

I read ARBITER's answer before I responded. He has answered the questions very well and I can add little to them.

But I will

Jesus did not need to speak in tongues because He had a totally open relationship with the Father.

wouldn't that be opposite of what you guys preach???closeness to God = charismatic tongues?
yet Jesus did not do this.

We don't have evidence for this but the language He used when praying to the Father might not have been Hebrew or Aramaic.

lol. this is funny....you guys will really stretch it to fit your theology

We need tongues because we are not Jesus, the divine Son of God.

hmm...Christ Himself did not need them, and never taught about them...hmmm....
hey, didn't Jesus teach us how to pray? were ecstatic/charismatic tongues mentioned there?

We are dependent on the Holy Spirit to help us communicate with God, and tongues is one of the kit of spiritual tools to enable us to do that.

tongues=languages....so, sure they are important to communicate with God..

Tongues is not a salvation issue.

true...I can speak only English and come to God...one tongue....not tongues plural...
if I heard a sermon in french, I would not even know when to say Amen,
unles it was interpreted for me by someone that spoke both french and English tongues

Jesus is a complete Saviour in Himself. We are totally depraved and helpless when the Holy Spirit enabled us to come to Jesus.

huh???
what has this to do with tongues?

We can add nothing to our conversion to Christ except our faith in Christ, and even that is given to us from the Father through His unmerited grace. We are justified by faith, and the just shall live by faith. I don't know of any Scripture that supports that having the gift of tongues is essential to salvation.

it is not

I would assume that the school is a private Christian school that has an enrolment policy. I guess that they are doing nothing illegal by having an insistence that the parents of students need to be able to speak in tongues as a condition of enrolment. The school seems to put a high value on the gift of tongues, and having students brought up in an environment where tongues are a normal occurrence, then that saves a whole area of potential debate and conflict in the school.

It would be the same for a Roman Catholic school barring enrolment of students with Reformed Church parents who are rabidly anti-catholic. It would not be good for the student or the school by being enrolled.

Catholic schools in my area made accceptions..
if your family believes, that is good enough...

Actually I could not understand why a student who had difficulties about the gift of tongues would want to enrol in a school where tongues was practiced in school chapel services and advocated and taught during religious studies sessions.

either could I...
but I don't know why anyone
would want to mumble ecstatic charismatic prayer to God either...
seeing He understands English and all tongues.

but you guys can leave it to chance if ya wanna