Lady Gets the Holy Ghost in church
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
Deadworm
Well-Known Member
swordsman: "...in Acts 2 and it was clearly miraculously speaking foreign human languages. In the absence of any re-definition the subsequent tongues must be presumed to be the same."
First, Acts 2 offer no definition that applies to later examples. The tongues there are labelled "dialektos," the term used exclusively for human languages, but this term is never used to label other NT examples of tongues.
Second, you are apparently unaware of the cultural relevance of the Oracle of
Delphi which provides pagan precedent for tongues and interpretation by a prophet.
You need to consult Kittel's artice on "glossai" (tongues) magisterial multi-volume dictionary. He provides examples of how "tongues" at Delphi can refer to "a secret language," "an expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure and needs explanation."
Third, you have overlooked the key point that the comprehensibility of the tongues in Acts 2 warrants its description as prophecy But in Acts 19:6 the tongues is carefully distinguished from prophesy. Thus, your claim that the tongues in Acts 2 can be completely equated with the tongues in Acts 10 and 19 is refuted. In Acts 10:47 and ll:15 Luke merely notes the recurrence of involuntary speck not understood by the speakers. I repeat: the tongues in Cornelius's house and at Ephesus are neither understood nor interpreted; so no one knows if they were human or angelic language.
swordsman: 'Pneumata' is never translated as angels..."
You pontificate from ignorance of the Word: "Are not all angels ministering spirits (--"pneumata"--Hebrews 1:14)?" Nor do you get to duck the simple fact that the Greek reads "zelotai pneumaton", which literally means "zealots for spirits." You can find no example where "pneumata" means "spiritual gifts," that it is clearly applied to such gifts here.
swordsman: "Virtually every translation renders this word as spiritual gifts and virtually every commentary on 1 Corinthians agrees that is the correct translation."
Again, you pontificate from ignorance. You are of course referring to the limited number you have bothered to check and have overlooked Lietzmann and Barrett's commentaries.
sworedsman: "Yes (on "tongues...of angels"--13:1)but Paul was giving an exaggerated hypothetical example of the gift of tongues..."
There is no exaggeration in his phrase "Though I speak in tongues of men and of angels." These are the 2 "kinds of speaking in tongues ("gene glosson") specified in 12:28. The hyperbole only begins with the double "alls" with reference to mysteries and knowledge.
swordsman: "Again nearly all commentators agree with that interpretation."
Just the opposite! See e. g, Conzelmann, Lietsmann, and Barrett.
Swordsman: "The Testament of Job was an ancient Jewish fairy tale."
Your sarcasms betrays ignorance of how NT scholars study cultural backgrounds to NT texts. In Conzelmann's commentary, for example, the Testament of Job is cited as an example of Jewish belief in the possibility of humans uttering angelic speech. Similarly, Barrett supports the identification of tongues of angels as glossolalia by citing first century eminent rabbi, Johanan ben Zakkai's reputation for understanding angelic dialects.
Swordsman: "Otherwise he would be contradicting himself because he makes it absolutely clear that not everyone would have the ability to speak in tongues (12:29)."
You are misreading Paul to imply that God never intended everyone to speak in tongues and prophesy. Instead, he is referring to the obvious fact that not everyone has activated these spiritual potentials. Thus, when he urges them to "strive for the greater gifts, the next gifts he mentions are tongues and prophecy (13:1). Tongues is mentioned last in Paul's lists in chap. 12, not because it is the least of the gifts, but because it is the source of disorder in Corinthian worship. In fact, prophecy is the greatest gift, but no greater than tongues, when there is an interpreter (14:5). Paul urges us to "strive for" these gifts because they are available to all! [On this see below]
Swordsman: "Speaking in tongues in private would be an abuse of a spiritual gift, which are for the benefit of others, not self."
On the contrary, "He who speaks in tongues builds up (= edifies) himself (12:4)."Paul values the edification received through private glossolalia. This is cofirmed by 14:28: "If there is no interpreter, let him be silent in church and speak [in tongues] to himself and to God." Commentators agree that the underlined additional phrase would be superfluous, unless it referred to privately praying in tongues.
First, Acts 2 offer no definition that applies to later examples. The tongues there are labelled "dialektos," the term used exclusively for human languages, but this term is never used to label other NT examples of tongues.
Second, you are apparently unaware of the cultural relevance of the Oracle of
Delphi which provides pagan precedent for tongues and interpretation by a prophet.
You need to consult Kittel's artice on "glossai" (tongues) magisterial multi-volume dictionary. He provides examples of how "tongues" at Delphi can refer to "a secret language," "an expression which in speech or manner is strange and obscure and needs explanation."
Third, you have overlooked the key point that the comprehensibility of the tongues in Acts 2 warrants its description as prophecy But in Acts 19:6 the tongues is carefully distinguished from prophesy. Thus, your claim that the tongues in Acts 2 can be completely equated with the tongues in Acts 10 and 19 is refuted. In Acts 10:47 and ll:15 Luke merely notes the recurrence of involuntary speck not understood by the speakers. I repeat: the tongues in Cornelius's house and at Ephesus are neither understood nor interpreted; so no one knows if they were human or angelic language.
swordsman: 'Pneumata' is never translated as angels..."
You pontificate from ignorance of the Word: "Are not all angels ministering spirits (--"pneumata"--Hebrews 1:14)?" Nor do you get to duck the simple fact that the Greek reads "zelotai pneumaton", which literally means "zealots for spirits." You can find no example where "pneumata" means "spiritual gifts," that it is clearly applied to such gifts here.
swordsman: "Virtually every translation renders this word as spiritual gifts and virtually every commentary on 1 Corinthians agrees that is the correct translation."
Again, you pontificate from ignorance. You are of course referring to the limited number you have bothered to check and have overlooked Lietzmann and Barrett's commentaries.
sworedsman: "Yes (on "tongues...of angels"--13:1)but Paul was giving an exaggerated hypothetical example of the gift of tongues..."
There is no exaggeration in his phrase "Though I speak in tongues of men and of angels." These are the 2 "kinds of speaking in tongues ("gene glosson") specified in 12:28. The hyperbole only begins with the double "alls" with reference to mysteries and knowledge.
swordsman: "Again nearly all commentators agree with that interpretation."
Just the opposite! See e. g, Conzelmann, Lietsmann, and Barrett.
Swordsman: "The Testament of Job was an ancient Jewish fairy tale."
Your sarcasms betrays ignorance of how NT scholars study cultural backgrounds to NT texts. In Conzelmann's commentary, for example, the Testament of Job is cited as an example of Jewish belief in the possibility of humans uttering angelic speech. Similarly, Barrett supports the identification of tongues of angels as glossolalia by citing first century eminent rabbi, Johanan ben Zakkai's reputation for understanding angelic dialects.
Swordsman: "Otherwise he would be contradicting himself because he makes it absolutely clear that not everyone would have the ability to speak in tongues (12:29)."
You are misreading Paul to imply that God never intended everyone to speak in tongues and prophesy. Instead, he is referring to the obvious fact that not everyone has activated these spiritual potentials. Thus, when he urges them to "strive for the greater gifts, the next gifts he mentions are tongues and prophecy (13:1). Tongues is mentioned last in Paul's lists in chap. 12, not because it is the least of the gifts, but because it is the source of disorder in Corinthian worship. In fact, prophecy is the greatest gift, but no greater than tongues, when there is an interpreter (14:5). Paul urges us to "strive for" these gifts because they are available to all! [On this see below]
swordsman: "In his 'wish' in 1 Cor 14:5 Paul is not saying that he expected everyone to speak in tongues."
Your comment is refuted by 14:31: "You can all prophesy one one by one (14:31)."
Paul's all-inclusive wish in 14:5 applies to both prophecy and tongues!
Your comment is refuted by 14:31: "You can all prophesy one one by one (14:31)."
Paul's all-inclusive wish in 14:5 applies to both prophecy and tongues!
Swordsman: "Speaking in tongues in private would be an abuse of a spiritual gift, which are for the benefit of others, not self."
On the contrary, "He who speaks in tongues builds up (= edifies) himself (12:4)."Paul values the edification received through private glossolalia. This is cofirmed by 14:28: "If there is no interpreter, let him be silent in church and speak [in tongues] to himself and to God." Commentators agree that the underlined additional phrase would be superfluous, unless it referred to privately praying in tongues.
Upvote
0
I see two forms of tongues happening in the bible, the gift of tongues as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians and the manifestation of tongues from the result of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as seen in Acts.
Acts doesn't follow the same rules that Paul presents in Corinthians, there certainly are more than 2-3 speaking, not always an interpretation, it appears to be all at once and tongues in Acts seems to be indiscriminately poured out, all of which are things Paul discourages. What Acts shows us is when the baptism of the HS occurs a manifestation of HS Spirit happens which is different than the gifts of the HS.
The gift of the HS according to 1 Corinthians seems to be heavily encouraged to edify the body of believers and that without the edification then the gift may be misrepresented. This is contrasted as it primary role in Acts where tongues seems to play a more evangelistic role.
within Charismatic circles there tends to be a lot of leeway of tongues without interpretation as it is looked as the manifestation of the baptism of the HS not the gift but I think this is what Paul is getting at in 1 Corinthian promoting order and spelling out some rules of tongues as their seems to have also been a lot of "leeway" in the Corinthian church.
when I look at the OP (post) I ask was the church edified? I'm not sure but it does appear the OP (poster) was edified as he it was a moment of celebration for him that this woman received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Would the church had been more edified if there was an interpretation?... Yes. Would an unbeliever been confused if they observed this?... Yes. Did the pastor explain the outburst so as to avoid confusion?... Not sure but it doesn't appear that way.
Paul's point is that whatever happens ensure the those present are edified (including unbelievers) and that there is order but what is important is Paul does not disqualify the gifts he just lays down rules to how to practice them. So it would appear to me this woman perhaps had a genuine experience of the HS but it could have been confusing to some and there was an lost opportunity to edify those present in a greater capacity.
Upvote
0
No the word Luke used for the act of speaking in tongues in Acts 2 is glossa (v4), the same word that is used for all the other instances of tongues. Dialektos (v8) is referring to the native languages of the crowd. If there was a different type of tongues in later chapters, Luke would not have used the same terminology (glossa) to label it.
Please show us a single instance in classical Greek literature where glossa is used to describe a non-cognitive utterance. Highly respected research by Christopher Forbes in his book "Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and its Hellenistic Environment" (1995) has established beyond doubt that the pagan oracles and Pythias spoke in Greek, not in non-cognitive utterances as was previously thought.
The tongues in Acts 2 was not prophecy. It doesn't say they were prophesying. Prophecy is a message from God to the people. What the disciples were doing was "declaring the mighty works of God" (ie. praise). Even if it was prophecy it doesn't follow that subsequent tongues for that reason must be non-cognative.
In those verses Peter said that the Holy Spirit came upon the gentiles in the same way as He came upon the disciples. If the Holy Spirit gave the Gentiles a different type of tongues then Peter was lying.
In that case you are admitting that your argument that they spoke in a non-human language is an argument from silence. If you are asserting that Acts 10 & 19 was a non-human language the burden of proof is upon you prove it.
You are misrepresenting me. I never said that angels were not spirits, I said pneumata is never translated as angels (which is how you say it should be translated in 1 Cor 14:12). Here is the entry for pneumata from the BDAG Lexicon, the gold standard of lexicons (I have edited out the vast amounts details and examples that are not relevent to our discussion):
① air in movement, blowing, breathing
③ a part of human personality, spirit ...
④ an independent noncorporeal being, in contrast to a being that can be perceived by the physical senses, spirit
⑥ the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit ...
ⓐ wind ...
ⓑ the breathing out of air, blowing, breath ...
② that which animates or gives life to the body, breath, (life-)spirit ...ⓑ the breathing out of air, blowing, breath ...
③ a part of human personality, spirit ...
④ an independent noncorporeal being, in contrast to a being that can be perceived by the physical senses, spirit
ⓐ God personally ...
ⓑ good, or at least not expressly evil spirits or spirit-beings ...
ⓒ evil spirits ...
⑤ God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit ...ⓑ good, or at least not expressly evil spirits or spirit-beings ...
ⓒ evil spirits ...
⑥ the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit ...
ⓓ The Spirit of God, being one, shows the variety and richness of its life in the different kinds of spiritual gifts which are granted to certain Christians 1 Cor 12:4, 7, 11; cp. vs. 13ab.—Vss.8–10 enumerate the individual gifts of the Spirit, using various prepositions: διὰ τοὺ πν. vs. 8a; κατὰ τὸ πν. vs. 8b; ἐν τῷ πν. vs. 9ab. τὸ πν. μὴ σβέννυτε do not quench the Spirit 1 Th 5:19refers to the gift of prophecy, acc. to vs. 20.—The use of the pl. πνεύματα is explained in 1 Cor 14:12 by the varied nature of the Spirit’s working; in vs. 32 by the number of persons who possess the prophetic spirit; on the latter s. Rv 22:6 and 19:10.
In addition there is not a single bible version that agrees with your translation of this verse. Out of 60 or so versions the vast majority render it as "spiritual gifts" or "things of the Spirit" etc. Only 4 obscure versions translate it literally as "spirits". Not a single one translates it as angels.
Seeing as I have well over 70 commentaries of 1 Corinthians, either as whole books or a copy of chapters 12-14, I can assure you that am not "pontificating from ignorance". Not one of them agrees with you.
You are wrong about Barrett's commentary. He certainly does not agree with you that 'spirits' here are angels.
A Commentary of the First Epistle to the Corintians - C. K. Barrett.
So with yourselves, since you are men who strive for (Paul uses the noun, ζηλωταί, cognate with the verb used in verse 1) spiritual gifts (literally, spirits; Paul normally uses the word, πνεῦμα, in the singular, with reference to the Spirit of God, but here thinks of various spiritual agencies producing various spiritual gifts; see verses 14, 15, 16, 32, and cf. 1 John 4:1),
Even the Pentecostal theologian Gordon Fee disagrees with you: "More likely this refers especially to their desire for one particular manifestation of the Spirit, the gift of tongues, which was for them the sure evidence of their being pneumatikos (a person of the Spirit, hence "spiritual"). " - The First Epistle to the Corinthians.So with yourselves, since you are men who strive for (Paul uses the noun, ζηλωταί, cognate with the verb used in verse 1) spiritual gifts (literally, spirits; Paul normally uses the word, πνεῦμα, in the singular, with reference to the Spirit of God, but here thinks of various spiritual agencies producing various spiritual gifts; see verses 14, 15, 16, 32, and cf. 1 John 4:1),
I don't have Leitzmanns commentary which only seems to be available in German.
It is clear there are 5 parallel hypothetical examples of gifts in 1 Cor 13:1-3.
Is the normal operations of the gift of prophecy to know ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie being omniscient)? No, that is an exaggeration.
Is the normal operation of the gift of faith to remove mountains? No, that is an exaggeration.
Is the normal operation of the gift of giving to give away ALL your possessions to the poor? No, that is an exaggeration.
Is the normal operation of the gift of giving to give up your own life? No, that is an exaggeration.
So is the normal operation of the gift of tongues to speak in the language of angels? No, that too is an exaggeration.
Paul is making the point that having gifts, even to the highest conceivable degree, is worthless without love.
You clearly haven't read Conzelmann properly - he agrees with me!
Hans Conzelmann - 1 Corinthians
The wording does not in itself require the equating of angels’ language and speaking with tongues. Moreover the expression can also be understood as a mere hyperbole: and if I had at my command every linguistic possibility even to the language of God.
The wording does not in itself require the equating of angels’ language and speaking with tongues. Moreover the expression can also be understood as a mere hyperbole: and if I had at my command every linguistic possibility even to the language of God.
Again I can't comment on Lietzmann. And Barrett hardly makes a convincing affirmation: "Apparently Paul thought....".
Now, in addition to Conzelmann, the following commentators agree with me that nobody actually spoke in the tongues of angels:
Craig S. Keener - First--Second Corinthians
Ben Witherington - Conflict and Community in Corinth
Richard L. Pratt - Holman New Testament Commentary - 1 & 2 Corinthians
Mark Taylor - 1 Corinthians: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (New American Commentary)
Daniel B. Wallace - Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament ~
J.I. Packer - Keep in Step with the Spirit
R C H Lenski - The Interpretation of I Corinthians
Robert L. Thomas - Understanding Spiritual Gifts: A Verse-by-verse Study of 1 Corinthians 12-14
Lynn Burton - Tongues in Corinth
Richard A. Horsley - Abingdon New Testament Commentaries | 1 Corinthians
Raymond F. Collins, Daniel J. Harrington - First Corinthians
John Phillips - Exploring 1 Corinthians: An Expository Commentary (2002)
D A Carson - Showing the Spirit
David K. Lowery - Bible Knowledge Commentary
George T. Montague - First Corinthians
Charles Hodge - An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Frédéric Godet - The First Epistle to the Corinthians
Zane C Hodges - The purpose of Tongues
Thomas R. Edgar - Miraculous Gifts: Are They for Today?
Robertson & Plummer - A critical and exegetical commentary on the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians
B Ward Powers - First Corinthians: An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary
Christopher Forbes - Prophecy and Inspired Speech in Early Christianity and Its Hellenistic Environment
Anthony C. Thiselton - The First Epistle to the Corinthians
Watson E. Mills Speaking in Tongues
Zerhusen - The Problem Tongues in 1 Cor 14: A Reexamination
John Calvin - Commentaries On St. Paul's First Epistle To The Corinthians
Phil Moore - Straight to the Heart of 1 & 2 Corinthians
Alan F. Johnson - 1 Corinthians, p.244 (2004)
Leon Morris - The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
Mal Couch - A Bible Handbook to the Acts of the Apostles
Dr. Nathan Ogan - Glossolalia: The Gift of Tongues
C Lapide - Commentary on Corinthians 1 & 2 and Galatians
Robert Gundry - Commentary on First Corinthians
Craig L Blomberg - 1 Corinthians: NIV Application Commentary
Robert E. Picirilli - First, Second Corinthians
Mark E. Moore - Fanning the Flame: Probing the Issues in Acts
Anthony Hoekema - What about tongues speaking?
Lorin L Cranford - The Apostle Paul, Servant of Christ
FF Bruce - 1 And 2 Corinthians
McGarvey & Pendleton - Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians and Romans
Dave Miller - Modern Day Miracles, Tongue-Speaking, and Holy Spirit Baptism
Pheme Perkins - First Corinthians
Philip Schaff - Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Derek W. H. Thomas - Acts
Simon J. Kistemaker - 1 Corinthians
Gordon Clark - First Corinthians
Albert Barnes - Notes on the Whole Bible
Geneva Study Bible
Henry Jacobs - Annotations on the Epistles of Paul to I Corinthians
Gerhard Hasel - Speaking in Tongues
David Prior - The Message of 1 Corinthians
Paul Barnett - 1 Corinthians
Arthur Stanley - The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians
Jamieson, Fawcett, & Brown - Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
J J Lias - Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges
Riggs & Reed - Epistles to the Corinthians
H L Goudge - The First Epistle to The Corinthians
William Burkitt -Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Max Turner - Early Christian Experience and Theology of Tongues
Ciampa & Rosner - 1 Corinthians
Let me know if you want to see the excerpts from any of them.
Conzelmann didn't say that. He mentions the Testament of Job merely as an example of literature that has people speaking the language of angels. He in no way says that is proof that people actually did such a thing. Hardly surprising seeing as the book is a ancient folk story and he has already endorsed the view that the 'tongues of angels' in 1 Cor 13:1 is hyperbole.
The story about Johanan ben Zakkai claiming that angels spoke to him, is not the same as men speaking the tongues of angels.
That is not what scripture says. Pauls words in 1 Cor 12 and Rom 12 are crystal clear and cannot be interpreted in any other way. Would you like me to post some commentaries on those verses?
The context of 1 Cor 12:31 is clearly the immediately preceding verses where Paul lists the gifts in order of importance. There is a clear division between the "greater gifts" and the start of the chapter 13 "And yet I will show you the most excellent way....". If you think the "greater gifts" are referring to the tongues of 1 Cor 13:1 you might want to read your own copy of Barrett's commentary again:
Strive for (be ambitious to acquire) the greater gifts—proper because the Corinthians evidently valued too highly what Paul regarded as one of the lowest of gifts, that of speaking with tongues. Thus the Corinthians might seek—by prayer and self-preparation—the gift of prophecy, or of teaching. These gifts would enable them to make a maximum contribution to the life of the church.
I can probably quote dozens of others that agree with him.
You might want to read 1 Cor 14:5 again.....carefully. It doesn't say interpreted tongues is equivalent to prophecy.
Eh? 14:31 is referring to prophecy not tongues! And even that is not saying that everyone can prophesy. Paul has already clearly stated in 1 Cor 12 and Rom 12 that not everyone has the same gift. Check out your Conzellman commentary:
31* This is an argument in favor of taking νἱ ἄιινη in v 29* as the rest of the prophets (see n. 46). For θαζʼ ἕλα πάληεο, "all one by one," cannot mean simply everybody, but all who are to be considered here, all upon whom the spirit of prophecy comes. The emphasis naturally does not lie on πάληεο, "all," but on "singly," i.e., that you may be understood.
No, it is clear Paul's 'wish' that everyone spoke in tongues in 14:5 was an imagined ideal just like he wished everyone was single like him, not something he realistically expected to happen.
There is no mention of "private" tongues in 14:4 nor 14:28. The context of both those verses is "in the church" not outside it. And I'm afraid there is no getting away from:
1 Cor 12:7 "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good."
1 Pet 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms."
1 Pet 4:10 "Each of you should use whatever gift you have received to serve others, as faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Feb 13, 2017
- 11,189
- 4,193
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
My home church was pastored by Jack Hayford, The Church On The Way. That is where I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and all desire to sin left immediately. And never returned. That is the main "evidence" in my book, and according to the apostle John too in 1 John 3. Of course, the gifts are on top of that main evidence. They are wonderful and are still here as they are part of the New Covenant. The New Covenant will not end until we see Jesus face to face.
Upvote
0
- Feb 13, 2017
- 11,189
- 4,193
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
You are correct that there are two categories of tongues. Both are allowed in church if taught about correctly.
There is the first one which happened on the Day of Pentecost (DoP) where the devout Jews heard them praising God in tongues. That is our prayer and praise language of Mark 16:17. It is called the SIGN. It should not be confused with the GIFT.
The GIFT of tongues is for the benefit of the church and limited to 2-3 and MUST be interpreted, whereas with the sign it isn't mandatory though possible if someone with the GIFT of interpretation of tongues is present and God wants them interpreted as on the DoP. The GIFT of diverse kinds of tongues is not given to everyone like the sign is. Paul said, "Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but more that you prophesied." He is NOT saying, I wish you all COULD speak in tongues, but that they WOULD. After all, it part of our armor of God, so that we can pray in the Spirit for one another.
Upvote
0
sunlover1
Beloved, Let us love one another
- Nov 10, 2006
- 26,146
- 5,348
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
AMEN
Same thing here.
when I received the baptism and began singing/praying in the Spirit and bam,
EVERYTHING became new.
The sky was bluer, grass was greener, and NO way will I be involved in that
stuff that was carnal. I wanted nothing to do with sin. CANT sin aamof. It's like
a conscience enhancer lol
Upvote
0
That distinction is not present in scripture. The tongues of 1 Corinthians are also called a "manifestation":
1 Cor 12:7 "But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given the word of wisdom .... to another various kinds of tongues"
The disciples were not acting contrary to Paul's commands regarding tongues. Paul's instructions to the Corinthians were to govern tongues speaking within the church, whereas the disciples were speaking tongues in a public place.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
That disctinction is not present in scripture either. The tongues in 1 Corinthians is also called a "sign":
1 Cor 14:22 "So then tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; "
You've just contradicted yourself. Paul's wishful ideal was referring to the Corinthian gift of tongues.
There is no mention of tongues in Ephesians 6.
Upvote
0
Because there is only one description of tongues in scripture, Acts 2 - miraculously speaking a foreign language you have never learned. Nowhere in scripture is it described as a non-human language.
Upvote
0
sunlover1
Beloved, Let us love one another
- Nov 10, 2006
- 26,146
- 5,348
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Why would we be told in 1 Corinthians 14:28 to speak to ourselves and God privately..
Why would I speak a foreign language to myself and to God?
Does God not understand my english language prayer?
Sure He does.
Notice it doesn't say to STOP if there's no interpreter?
It says to do it quietly.
Perhaps there's more to it than you know.
That Bible is huge!
Upvote
0
straykat
Well-Known Member
- Apr 17, 2018
- 1,120
- 640
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Glossolalia isn't unique to these experiences. All kinds of (non-Christian) spheres do it.
I remember there was even an alternative band back in the day where the singer did nothing but sing glossolalia. It didn't make her particularly religious, let alone Christian.
Upvote
0
Paul makes no mention of speaking in tongues privately. That would be contrary to the bibles stated purpose of spiritual gifts which are for the benefit of others (see 1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10). Paul said that if there is no interpreter the speaker is to be SILENT. There is no speaking at all. It is a silent prayer and no longer SPEAKING in tongues.
You could ask the exact same question about praying in a heavenly or angelic language (not that tongues is ever described as such).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 13, 2017
- 11,189
- 4,193
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yes, 1 Corinthians 14 shows the difference between the two and when to use them and when not to. But you and I have already gone over this time and time again, so I've said what I have to say, and I'm not wasting time on someone so determined to not believe.
Upvote
0
- Feb 13, 2017
- 11,189
- 4,193
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Feb 13, 2017
- 11,189
- 4,193
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
We've gone over this before. You couldn't "see" it then, and nothing has changed.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
