Assembly of God and Tongues

[swordsman1]

What was the purpose of the speaking in Another tongue here among those of the same Lauange?


Acts 19:6 - And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

There were 12 of them there .

It was to indicate that the disciples of John the Baptist, along with the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans, had all received the Spirit and were all to be included in the new church.

For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; <----- what is that saying?

for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. <-------- would you be so kind to explain your take on this portion?

1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit."

The tongues spoken in the church at Corinth were untranslated foreign languages that no one in the congregation understood. If someone was speaking say Persian in a predominantly Greek church then undoubtedly no one would understand. What was spoken was a mystery to them. Only God, who knows all languages, would understand what was spoken.

The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, <------What does this mean to You??

but the one who prophesies builds up the church.

Here Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for speaking in untranslated tongues. Tongues, along with all spiritual gifts, are for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10). But nobody understood what was spoken so nobody was edified apart from the speaker himself. Whereas prophecy everyone could understand and be edified.

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

Then you don't comprehend what you read in the bible about tongues.

Lol you mean I don't comprehend your denominational View on tongues in The Bible .
More Like that I would say <3

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

It was to indicate that the disciples of John the Baptist, along with the Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans, had all received the Spirit and were all to be included in the new church.



1 Cor 14:2 "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit."

The tongues spoken in the church at Corinth were untranslated foreign languages that no one in the congregation understood. If someone was speaking say Persian in a predominantly Greek church then undoubtedly no one would understand. What was spoken was a mystery to them. Only God, who knows all languages, would understand what was spoken.



Here Paul is rebuking the Corinthians for speaking in untranslated tongues. Tongues, along with all spiritual gifts, are for the benefit of others (1 Peter 4:10). But nobody understood what was spoken so nobody was edified apart from the speaker himself. Whereas prophecy everyone could understand and be edified.

He was laying down a foundation ..Paul did not Forbid Tounnges being spoke without a interpretation ..Lol
He told them Who to keep it between .
He rebuked No one for that .

 

[swordsman1]

No, but the best gifts were for everybody (12:31; 14:1) and that's why Paul tells them to earnest pursue "the best gifts" and why the use of Numbers 11:29 as the background is so important.

Paul told the Corinthian church as a whole to desire prophecy. Not for individual believers to desire and seek the gift. We can desire and pray for a gift till we're blue in the face but we won't get it if it was not pre-ordained by the Holy Spirit for us to have (see 1 Cor 12:11).

"Are all prophets?...Do all speak in tongues?", Paul asked. No is the answer.

No, he meant it ,but makes clear that this is only his opinion (7:6), not a divine commandment.

Really? He wanted everyone to be single and nobody to get married?

You totally miss the point: Paul is using Semitic hyperbole to stress the priority of more excellent way.

Exactly. All 5 of the parallel statements are hyperbole - exaggerated figurative language. None of them, including speaking the language of angels, is meant to be taken literally.

 

[BornAgainChristian1]

Lol you mean I don't comprehend your denominational View on tongues in The Bible .
More Like that I would say <3

I'm still waiting for your NEW revelations.......

 

[shioks]

I believe the initial baptism of the Holy Spirit is what gives us a reborn spirit. I had the gift of prophecy and was anointed and commissioned by God to lead worship for years before I got the gift of tongues. And when I did receive it, I was alone. I believe tongues can be a sign of the Holy Spirit, though I don't know if everyone gets it. But I'll leave that up to God. I first was prayed for to get the gift of tongues when I was 16 but I didn't receive it until I was 41. I recently had someone tell me to avoid the glamour of tongues. I still don't think I know what he was talking about. Is getting tongues in a Pentecostal church glamorous?
My understanding of tongues is there are many different types. Some are unknown human languages, and some aren't. Whenever I'm ministering and the Holy Spirit is flowing through me, I have a hard time not praying in tongues. Not that I don't have a say, it's that I really do want to pray in the Spirit. I believe a spiritual gift is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. I call this gift my prayer language. It helps if I lead worship and it is invaluable when it comes to spiritual warfare. Anyway, this is what I believe God has showed me regarding this topic. Peace.

When you pray in tongues, do you understand what you are praying?

 

[Biblicist]

Not all are given the gift of tongues. There is a diversity of gifts. It is very clear in scripture:

1 Corinthians 12

I'll highlight a key part of the passage:

"4 There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all: 8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills."

In my post #32 I had already addressed this question with;

With this passage Paul is merely pointing out that within the Congregational meeting that not all will function within prophecy, powers, healings or tongues; afterall, Paul has stipulated (through the Holy Spirit), that only three messages of praise to the Father in tongues are permitted and that only three messages or words of prophecy to the congregation are permitted per meeting. We can add to this that not everyone will choose to speak words of praise to the Father in tongues where they may choose to prophesy instead.

As we are all told to pray in the Spirit then it is logical to realise that we should all be able to pray in the Spirit where we can communicate through the Holy Spirit (or Him through us) to the Father, either in words of praise or supplication.​

Most cessationists (and even some Pentecostals) fail to understand that in 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 Paul is discussing how the Holy Spirit in particular ministers within the Congregational meeting, where Paul points out something that the Corinthians would have already understood, which was that not everyone who can pray in the Spirit (maybe 99%) of the various Corinthian congregations would choose to praise God in the Spirit, where instead they would choose to prophesy to the congregation.

 

[Biblicist]

Point E - Tongues has 3 modes of operation.

Type 1 - As a sign and wonder to unbelievers, where you speak natural human languages, where a native speaker of that language understands his own language not by divine revelation, but by his natural understanding of his own language. See Acts 2.

Type 2 - As prophesy to the church by an interpreter (usually supernatural interpretation), here a spirit-filled believer speaks in tongues, not to unbelievers as a sign, but to other Christians, and a Christian among them holds the interpretation given not by natural understanding but by divine understanding in their own spirit. 1 Corinthians 14:27

Prophecy is greater than tongues, unless someone interpret, then tongues becomes prophecy. 1 Corinthians 14:5

Type 3 - As prayer language to God, where no man knows what is said.

For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. - 1 Corinthians 14:2

When someone gets baptized in the Holy Ghost, and they speak in tongues, it is usually 3, but if the spirit wills they manifest the gift of tongues for signs or edification, then type 1 or type 2 may happen. Type 3 is available to all believers, type 1 and type 2 are not available "at will" but can be sought after with God.

As I have been able to pray in the Spirit (tongues) for 40 years, I can certainly give my full assent to how tongues is a prayer language to God, where I would say that this is the only form of tongues that the Scriptures speak of.

With Acts 2, the ability of the 120 to speak in tongues was undoubtedly a unique and unrepeatable event which was given so that the Jews who primarily lived outside of Judah could receive a witness that something powerful had just occurred. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul goes to great length to explain that when an unbeliever or a cessationist walks into a meeting, where all are praying in the Spirit ,that they will naturally say that "they are mad"; so tongues does have a sign value, but for those who are uninitiated into the things of the Spirit, it will only serve as a negative sign as they will not comprehend what is happening around them.

The interesting thing with how many Pentecostals give assent to the formula tongues + interpretation = prophecy is that there is no support for this from within the Scriptures.

 

[Razare]

With Acts 2, the ability of the 120 to speak in tongues was undoubtedly a unique and unrepeatable event

There are many modern accounts that disagree.

Because you spoke in tongues for 40 years, and have never spoke in an man's language you did not know to another person, does not mean this is the same experience uniform across all Christianity. John Osteen, converted to the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon hearing a reliable account of a missionary being spoken to in the language of the tribe he had ministered to. He understood the language because he had been with that culture. But the one speaking that language was a little girl at church who had never left the states. It was supernatural tongues, in the language of man, with a speaker of that language present.

There are many other testimonies, but John's is powerful because he was a baptist graduated from seminary school.

So I see no reason to come up with teachings based upon this or that person's experience when the scripture states otherwise, and then we can go find things that agree with scripture out there in the real world, even if they are not extremely common things. I agree Acts 2 manifestation is rare, but it happens today still.

The Type 2 manifestation with supernatural interpretation is very very common in churches. I have seen it multiple times myself, and have seen others do it with supernatural revelation and knowledge as a result.

 

[Biblicist]

There are many modern accounts that disagree.

Because you spoke in tongues for 40 years, and have never spoke in an man's language you did not know to another person, does not mean this is the same experience uniform across all Christianity. John Osteen, converted to the baptism of the Holy Spirit upon hearing a reliable account of a missionary being spoken to in the language of the tribe he had ministered to. He understood the language because he had been with that culture. But the one speaking that language was a little girl at church who had never left the states. It was supernatural tongues, in the language of man, with a speaker of that language present.

There are many other testimonies, but John's is powerful because he was a baptist graduated from seminary school.

So I see no reason to come up with teachings based upon this or that person's experience when the scripture states otherwise, and then we can go find things that agree with scripture out there in the real world, even if they are not extremely common things. I agree Acts 2 manifestation is rare, but it happens today still.

The Type 2 manifestation with supernatural interpretation is very very common in churches. I have seen it multiple times myself, and have seen others do it with supernatural revelation and knowledge as a result.

Unfortunately I do not see Osteen as being a reliable source for information, so we might have to leave him aside for the time being.

As for “Never speaking in man’s language”, I’ve been doing this since I was a toddler, though I am limited to English with a splattering of Koine Greek, though this certainly does not match Paul’s ability to speak in a number of languages, such as with Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, though I can certainly speak in the tongues of Angels, which is what he was speaking of in 1Cor 13:1.

I’ve undoubtedly lost count of the who knows how many hundreds of tongues that were incorrectly interpreted as being directed toward man and not to the Father, but human error cannot override that of the Word where Paul himself says;

1 Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit. (1Co 14:2 NIV)​

Even if someone interprets what is being said to the Father through the Spirit, the Holy Spirit’s words of praise will always be that, where they are words of praise and adoration to the Father. When the Holy Spirit speaks to an individual or to a group of people he will always do this through prophecy.

If Paul had of said otherwise (contrary to 1Cor 14:2) and if we had any example of where the Holy Spirit has ever spoken to man through tongues then we could accept this. Even with the Day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was not providing a message to the nearby crowd as we are told that they only heard words of praise about the greatness of God, which is why Peter had to provide the churches first evangelistic message.

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

I'm still waiting for your NEW revelations.......

Just a bit condensing, Just a tad <3

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

Paul would of had the perfect opportunity to let the church Know on several occasions ( if Indeed tounges without interpretation Was Wrong or Sinful or that Tounges should only Used to speak a foreign language and must be Translated ... .don't you think He would have said so??)

Knowing the Boldness of Paul , he probably would have made that Clear.

That's where I am at , plenty of scripture
Just doesn't say ( tounges are Only for speaking in a language foreign to You )

 

[Biblicist]

Paul would of had the perfect opportunity to let the church Know on several occasions ( if Indeed lounges without interpretation Was Wrong or Sinful or that Tounges were only Used to
Translate into Unknown languages .)

Knowing the Boldness of Paul , he probably would have made that Clear.

That's where I am at , plenty of scripture
Just doesn't say ( tounges are Only for speaking in a language foreign to You )

If I am reading you correctly, in that you appear to be saying that Paul did not take the opportunity to suggest that within the congregational setting that tongues on its own is forbidden, then you would only have to look at 1Cor 14 where Paul has made it absolutely clear that each occurrence of tongues must be accompanied by an interpretation/articulation; this also means that the congregation must never sing in tongues all at once.

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

If I am reading you correctly, in that you appear to be saying that Paul did not take the opportunity to suggest that within the congregational setting that tongues on its own is forbidden, then you would only have to look at 1Cor 14 where Paul has made it absolutely clear that each occurrence of tongues must be accompanied by an interpretation/articulation; this also means that the congregation must never sing in tongues all at once.

Humm.
Do you think this is about an interpretation a foreign language, when Paul is saying 2 at the most three ???
In the middle of a Church meeting ?
Order in Church Meetings
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Let me know what you think ?

If the Person ( the one who is to hear the message (in a foreign lauanguage to the speaker or the one speaking in a unknown tongue ) Understands the One speaking in their own Fluent language ??? What need is there of a interpretation??

 

[Biblicist]

Humm.
Do you think this is about an interpretation a foreign language, when Paul is saying 2 at the most three ???
In the middle of a Church meeting ?
Order in Church Meetings
26 How is it then, brethren? Whenever you come together, each of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be two or at the most three, each in turn, and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in church, and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge. 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.33 For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Let me know what you think ?

If the Person ( the one who is to hear the message (in a foreign lauanguage to the speaker or the one speaking in a unknown tongue ) Understands the One speaking in their own Fluent language ??? What need is there of a interpretation??

As I hold to the view that whenever a tongue is given, that it will always be directed toward the Father in an inarticulate utterance (language of Angels), then I would also hold to the view that the only way anyone could know what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father would be when the Holy Spirit enables someone to provide an interpretation/articulation.

So that I'm not replying to something that you are not asking, would my remarks be in line with what you are asking of me?

Edit: typo

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men, but to God: for no man understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks

Commentary for anybody who is interested, <3
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(2) For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue.—Better, For he that speaketh in a tongue. The word “unknown” is not in the original, but it has been inserted in connection with the word tongue “all through this chapter, so as to make the various passages seem to be consistent with the theory that the gift of tongues was a gift of languages. This is not the place to enter into the question of what particular external manifestation of this gift was evidenced on the Day of Pentecost. (See Acts 2:1-13.) Still, believing that the gift of tongues here spoken of is identical with the gift of tongues which was first bestowed at Pentecost, I would say that the phenomena described as occurring then must be explained by the fuller and more elaborate account of the nature of the gift which is given to us here. Against the theory that the gift was one of a capacity to speak various languages we have three considerations. (1) The word dialectos,which is repeatedly used to express languages (Acts 1:19; Acts 2:6; Acts 2:8;Acts 21:40; Acts 22:2; Acts 26:14), is never used by St. Paul or by the author of the Acts in reference to the utterances of those who possessed the gift of tongues, but the other word,glossa, which is, literally, the physical organ of speech—as if the utterances were simply sounds that proceeded from it. (2) There is no trace whatever of this knowledge of languages having been ever used for the purpose of preaching to those who spoke foreign languages. The language of the Lycaonians was evidently not understood by the Apostles when they were addressed in it (see Acts 14:11), and they did not speak in it. That the hearers at Pentecost said they heard those who were filled with the Spirit “speak in our own language” would only imply, either that the outpouring on Pentecost had for the moment a miraculous effect, which immediately ceased, or that “all the various elements of Aramaic and Hellenistic speech, latent in the usual language of the time, were quickened, under the power of this gift, into a new life, sometimes intelligible, sometimes unintelligible to those who heard it, but always expressive of the vitality and energy of the Spirit by which it was animated.” (3) The description of the gift in this chapter is utterly inconsistent with it being a gift of languages. The gift was the result of a quickened spiritual power by the action of the Holy Ghost (see also Acts 2:4; Acts 10:44-46; Acts 19:6); it poured itself forth in wild, impassioned utterances, which were sometimes mistaken for delirium (1Corinthians 14:23); and these were the expressions, not of thoughts, but of feelings, unintelligible always, if uninterpreted, to the listener, and sometimes to the utterer himself.
It is to be observed that very notable spiritual phenomena, not unlike what are recorded here, accompanied many periods of great spiritual revival. The histories of the early work of Wesley and Whitfield, and of Irving—to take examples in England alone—afford some very remarkable illustrations. The general subject of the first part of this chapter (1Corinthians 14:1-25) is the Gift of Tongues, and is thus dealt with:—

I.PROPHECY IS SUPERIOR TO THE GIFT OF TONGUES (1Corinthians 14:2-11)

Because (1)Tongues are the means of communion between the individual and God, whereas prophecy is communion with other men (1Corinthians 14:2-3).

(2)Tongues do yourself good; prophecy does good to others (1Corinthians 14:4-6).

This truth is illustrated (a) by the variety of musical instruments (1Corinthians 14:7); (b) by the distinction of musical notes (1Corinthians 14:8-9); (c) by the varieties of human language (1Corinthians 14:10-11).

II.PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE FOREGOING (1Corinthians 14:11-19).

(1)What the aim and object of the Christians should be (1Corinthians 14:12-13).

(2)His own example (1Corinthians 14:14-19).

III.FURTHER APPEAL TO THEIR INTELLIGENCE AS TO THIS TRUTH (1Corinthians 14:21-25).

(1)The Old Testament teaches the same principle (1Corinthians 14:21-22).

(2)The gift of prophecy is a means of spreading Christianity, and the gift of tongues is not (1Corinthians 14:23-25).

In the spirit he speaketh mysteries.—The utterances come, not from his mind, but from his spirit, stirred by the Holy Spirit; and he speaks mysteries unintelligible to others.

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

As I hold to the view that whenever a tongue is given, that it will always be directed toward the Father in an inarticulate utterance (language of Angels), then I would also hold to the view that the only way anyone could know what the Holy Spirit is saying to the Father would be when the Holy Spirit enables someone to provide an interpretation/articulation.

So that I'm not replying to something that you are not asking, would my remarks be in line with what you are asking of me?

Edit: typo

Yes Sis , Thanks

 

[Biblicist]

For he that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not to men, but to God: for no man understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers . . . . . .

That was a good read indeed! We are undoubtedly on the same page where we view tongues as being an inarticulate communication from the Holy Spirit through an individual to the Father. Furthermore, we would also be in agreement that tongues has nothing to do with known human languages.

About the only qualification that I would add in, is with his comment that tongues can be used to evangelise the lost. Even though prophecy can have a positive effect on an unbeliever within a meeting, prophecy would be unlikely to have any real application outside of the congregational meeting or a home group etc - but what a great read it was!

 

[Biblicist]

Yes Sis , Thanks

Oh . . . it seems that I have omitted my Male Gender from by bio.
Okay, now fixed!

 

[Lady&TheCoatofmanycolors]

Oh . . . it seems that I have omitted my Male Gender from by bio.
Okay, now fixed!

Sorry brother ! Honestly I didn't look .
My bad .
Have a great night