Cessationism question

[Biblicist]

As for me, I'm not as concerned that Paul/Luke may differ in the eyes of those who think 'they' do.

The problem here is that this has become the final attempt at a line of defence for the classic-Pentecostal (AoG) view that the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is intended to be subsequent to our initial Conversion experience; once this new view falls away, then those who still hold to the position of subsequence will have to look outside of the Scriptures, which is of course not an option at all.

But I do believe that Jesus gave a president for me with the three baptisms which spoke of in the Great Commission. Baptisms which fit hand in glove, for me, with the multiple baptisms espoused in Hebrews 6 for progression into maturity. Unfortunately, none of your 'aids' probably even speak to these 2 'variables'...do they? I'm going to assume not, because as you earlier mentioned, most are dichotomists. So they have a bit of an immediate disadvantage in presenting their 'non triune' POV to me.

Even though there are many commentaries on Hebrews, as I only have two being Hebrews, Donald Guthrie (1983) and the larger Commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth (1993), I doubt that any scholar would consider that there are more than two baptisms, being that of water and the Holy Spirit.

I guess this is where my struggle isn't in 'talking it right before you get it wrongly' (if that's even possible with God), as much as it is, as I said before,; "have you got it?" Sadly, these men, which you mentioned, who are struggling so much with the theological language pertaining getting it by the 'letter of the theologian's law' (so to speak) and thereby 'doing it right', have lost the faith to 'do it at all'. Or at least, not nearly to the degree with which they once 'walked' in this experience, as Sspiritual denominations. Of all the visits I ever made to our local AofG, I never heard one tongue...let alone an interpretation or any other manifestation of the Spirit. It's like one brother (Derek Prince) said; "There is no longer a Pentecostal movement, because nothing is moving anymore. And the Charismatics are close to not moving anymore also." That's a 'quote' to the best of my 'poor' memory.

Certainly within the Western (minority world) hemisphere of the Church it would be hard to argue against that overall things at this particular point of time seem to be rather quiet. Undoubtedly there would be a number of factors at play but I am convinced that the reason many Pentecostals seem to be often little different to that of their Evangelical brethren is that they have lost confidence in God’s Word through the old theological models that many congregations still adhere to; where the leaders of these congregations often seem to be theologically illiterate.

Never could figure out what you were specifically referencing with this quote.

I making reference to the teachings of the humanist commentator John MacArthur who has stood against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit for decades.

Or......NOT! Sorry bro. my spirit and the Holy Spirit both have a language....IMO. And I control my spirit (like the prophet). And the Holy Spirit manifests Himself individually through us, when He wills....and, we are a 'willing vessel'. I can't make Him pray to God whom He already is, at my command.

From a Pentecostal perspective I am not aware of any denominational teachings that suggest that our supposed human spirit and the Holy Spirit who resides within us each have their own language.

Here’s where language can be both a friend and a foe, I mentioned a couple of weeks back that I incorrectly presumed (I was very surprised at the time) that Wayne Grudem who is a well known charismatic scholar was a Trichotomist. I thought this was the case having read this in one of his commentaries, but thankfully, being surprised that a scholar would be a Trichotomist (but they must exist) I decided to do a bit more investigating, where I discovered that he was in fact a Dichotomist but his choice of words allowed me to misunderstand how he was fusing the Holy Spirit with what we could deem to be a human spirit, where a follow up video showed that he was using the term ‘human spirit’ in a different way – very confusing indeed!!

While I understand what you're saying concerning the blinders of indoctrinated translators, there's the flip-side. Even the NIV publishers found a qualified homosexual OT expert, to help them interpret that translation too. Apparently, homosexuality wasn't part of the publishing company's concern, when it came to signing their required 'doctrinal agreement contract'. A contract which all translators with 'qualifying cemetery degrees' have to sign before being hired to translate...the 'infallible word of God'. Right, and just when did it become 'infallible'?

I recall reading about this maybe 30 years back and I am not surprised that a Christian publishing company could have easily overlooked this problem in those days. Who would have thought that an Evangelical scholar would be a homosexual? But, as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to language and linguistics, when it comes to the moral condition of the scholars from within these persuasions that it sadly seems to matter for very little as language is language and even a moral cretin can easily understand the meaning of a Hebrew or Greek word. In fact, most of us probably learned to read and write from atheists and people who were secretly immoral.

I still have to say, that the cry of my heart is that I want to rely more on hearing Him than on hearing the wit of carnal minded theologians. All of which, can talk circles around me in that battle for the mind of doctrinal conquest.

Yes, the same goes for me as well, which is why I only buy commentaries that have been written by men who have demonstrated a strong love for both the Lord and His Word; the fact that many are either Pentecostal or charismatic is certainly a plus as well. As for the others, I can legally scan (OCR) chapters 12, 13 & 14 of First Corinthians, Acts 2, Eph 4 etc so this gives me a broad understanding of not only the best of contemporary theological thought but also from a historical perspective. Unlike the days of old when most writings on the things of the Spirit were dull and dry by men who knew little of the Holy Spirit, over the past 30 years we have seen commentary being produced by almost countless fine Spirit filled and Spirit led individuals.

The idea that Biblical scholars or anyone who is competent with the Scriptures "know very little of the Holy Spirit" died away maybe 30 years back.

IOW, in speaking to your initially spelled out dilemma for most of us....I've never bought a commentary. I have one Greek lexicon (which doesn't meet your 'requirements' ). I bought it because I was young and hungry and heard there was a book that helped you study the Greek and Hebrew. It was called STRONG'S CONCORDANCE. Only I didn't know that name. But the kind owner of the local "CHRISTIAN" BOOK store 'dusted off', and sold me a copy of Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich's Greek NT Lexicon. Wasn't much good for a new Christian who didn't even speak Greek though? But it's in really good shape if you want to buy it....NOT.

Wow . . . ouch . . . the Bauer’s Lexicon!!! That would be akin to handing someone who is doing a First Aid course a full years paperback subscription of The New England Journal of Medicine. By the way, was that the BAG (1957), the BAGD (1979) or the BDAG (2000) edition? The weakness of the BAGD (1979) was that it did not differentiate between a strict definition and a gloss, where a gloss (in italics) is not so much a definition but where words have been included that are frequently found in our various translations; the later BDAG makes a clear distinction between a definition (Roman type) and a gloss (in italics).

I bought my hardback copy (BAGD) back in 1992 and now I only use the BDAG which is a part of the BibleWorks software package. For those who want to buy a reasonably priced and an easy to use Lexicon, I would suggest the modestly priced single volume edition of the TDNT, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which virtually everyone needs to own. Sadly, if yours is the old BAGD about its only value now is as a conversation piece on a coffee table.

 

[Hillsage]

I making reference to the teachings of the humanist commentator John MacArthur who has stood against the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit for decades.

I knew who you were referencing, but I couldn't figure out what paragraph you were specifically tying it to. I knew he was a cessasionist and big time anti Charismatic, but haven't heard the humanist tag.

From a Pentecostal perspective I am not aware of any denominational teachings that suggest that our supposed human spirit and the Holy Spirit who resides within us each have their own language.

Denominations have typically represented a tombstone to the last Spiritual move of God. A number in a denomination will start 'seeing the light' concerning past areas of darkness which were brought into the church from Rome. That 'group within' sees something 'new' and the 'old majority' will not accept it, so they start a new church. Which then grows into a new denomination with its own rigid doctrinal walls. Walls which still contain a lot of other 'bad theology' baggage, that they still don't have 'ears to hear or eyes to see'.

Here’s where language can be both a friend and a foe, I mentioned a couple of weeks back that I incorrectly presumed (I was very surprised at the time) that Wayne Grudem who is a well known charismatic scholar was a Trichotomist. I thought this was the case having read this in one of his commentaries, but thankfully, being surprised that a scholar would be a Trichotomist (but they must exist) I decided to do a bit more investigating, where I discovered that he was in fact a Dichotomist but his choice of words allowed me to misunderstand how he was fusing the Holy Spirit with what we could deem to be a human spirit, where a follow up video showed that he was using the term ‘human spirit’ in a different way – very confusing indeed!!

I'm pretty sure that on the day of judgment we'll all be as confused as a termite in a yoyo concerning what we all 'thought' we knew 'for sure'. That's why I cling to 'who' I know more than 'what' I know. But I am still enough of a 'thinker' that I do like to bounce my ideas off others, just to see if anything sticks. Unfortunately too much offense is taken by those who think 'defending the faith' is biblically defined as protecting your 'indoctrinated theological box', with your life.

Wow . . . ouch . . . the Bauer’s Lexicon!!! That would be akin to handing someone who is doing a First Aid course a full years paperback subscription of The New England Journal of Medicine. By the way, was that the BAG (1957)

Yep '57' edition is mine. I got saved in '72' and received the HOLY SPIRIT 6 months later, so I probably bought my BAG in '73'. I actually have used it, a little bit. I went to the front cover and hand wrote the Greek alphabet so I knew what the letters looked like and where they fell in the alphabet. Then when I came across a Greek word I could 'painstakingly' look for each letter by flipping through the book. Personally I don't think it would make as good of a 'coffee table conversation piece' for me, as it would a 'fireplace' piece.

 

[1stcenturylady]

As was said, the passage is not about Christ returning, to see him face to face, that will happen, but changes in the believing church and change in ministries and gifts have been happening all along, and we have far more revelation available now with much more access to truth that would be for us to know. There isn't the same level of language barriers in our world now.

As it is said tongues will cease, that has to be true, and differences we see will amount to understanding when that would be. I see the gift of tongues defined a certain way, miraculously distinct from any ecstatic utterances that others would do, and I see it showing that this miraculous occurrence with speech in another human language not known to the speaker but known to a hearer did not continue, evidently stopping at some time, though ecstatic speech is around, including cases where it is called tongues.

What in the world made you believe tongues would be understood by the HEARER, when Scripture plainly tells us that "no man understands"? Even on the Day of Pentecost they heard supernaturally. How else could each one there hear all of them speaking in his own language?

When your teachers tell you something that DOESN'T agree with scripture 1 Corinthians 14:2, then STOP blindly believing the teacher and find out the truth.

 

[Biblicist]

What in the world made you believe tongues would be understood by the HEARER, when Scripture plainly tells us that "no man understands"? Even on the Day of Pentecost they heard supernaturally. How else could each one there hear all of them speaking in his own language?

When your teachers tell you something that DOESN'T agree with scripture 1 Corinthians 14:2, then STOP blindly believing the teacher and find out the truth.

Mmmm....the problem here is that the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak words of praise to the Father in the languages that the crowd could understand; Luke does not tell us that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate so that the words that the 120 spoke were somehow changed within their ears.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Mmmm....the problem here is that the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak words of praise to the Father in the languages that the crowd could understand; Luke does not tell us that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate so that the words that the 120 spoke were somehow changed within their ears.

It actually does say that, and you're not believing God can speak to the unregenerate is just not true, and is limiting your understanding.

I've seen gifts given to unbelievers that caused their faith to instantly grow to receive Christ. Look at Saul of Tarsus. God can speak to whomever He likes. There was an unsaved girl in a town I lived in who was taken to my church by her school friends. While they were praying for her, one started speaking in tongues, and she began to cry in repentance. Come to find out, she understood in English what was being spoken in tongues. Everyone else just heard tongues. She was given the gift of interpretation of tongues.

 

[Hillsage]

Mmmm....the problem here is that the Scriptures tell us that the Holy Spirit enabled the 120 to speak words of praise to the Father in the languages that the crowd could understand; Luke does not tell us that the Holy Spirit fell upon the unregenerate so that the words that the 120 spoke were somehow changed within their ears.

Well, somewhere there is a truth not considered by either of you IMO.

They received the prayer tongue of their spirit first, and the "noise" of them praying/praising in 'that' tongue, which produces 'self edification' and "which no man understands" drew a crowd. When the crowd gathered then the Holy Spirit came UPON them again and manifested a language through them for the edification of the people that, the Holy Spirit's 'gift of tongues' was a gift for. And His gift was manifested so those people could be edified in their languages as they were being spoken by the disciples. Two different tongues from two different spirits....one 'a holy spirit', and the other 'the Holy Spirit'.

Hey, that works for me, anyhow. But we can all wait until glory to find out if I'm right or not....right?

 

[Biblicist]

It actually does say that, and you're not believing God can speak to the unregenerate is just not true, and is limiting your understanding.

The problem here is that it is not an issue with God speaking to the unregenerate, but with how you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit also fell on the unregenerate along with the 120. The scenario your are presenting (and I understand that you are doing so to maintain consistency with 1Cor 14) presents a number of serious problems with the first being that it supports the view of Universalism in that as the Spirit fell upon both the Believers and unbelievers that all will be Saved; in fact, why would the Jews have bothered accepting Jesus when all they had to say was "Hey, as the Holy Spirit fell on us also then who needs this Jesus you are speaking of?"

Even though this particular account appears to stand in opposition to every other occurrence of tongues, particularly that Paul has gone to some length to explain that tongues will always be given in a form of communication that no man will ever be able to understand; we need to remember that the Day of Pentecost was a once off event in that the Father had decided to provide some of the Jews with an opportunity to embrace the Christ.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The problem here is that it is not an issue with God speaking to the unregenerate, but with how you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit also fell on the unregenerate along with the 120. The scenario your are presenting (and I understand that you are doing so to maintain consistency with 1Cor 14) presents a number of serious problems with the first being that it supports the view of Universalism in that as the Spirit fell upon both the Believers and unbelievers that all will be Saved; in fact, why would the Jews have bothered accepting Jesus when all they had to say was "Hey, as the Holy Spirit fell on us also then who needs this Jesus you are speaking of?"

Even though this particular account appears to stand in opposition to every other occurrence of tongues, particularly that Paul has gone to some length to explain that tongues will always be given in a form of communication that no man will ever be able to understand; we need to remember that the Day of Pentecost was a once off event in that the Father had decided to provide some of the Jews with an opportunity to embrace the Christ.

No, I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. The supernatural understanding was a confirmation to them that the words they were about to hear in the sermon by Peter should lead them to repentance.

But, I totally disagree that the Day of Pentecost was a once off occurrence. God is not a God of confusion.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The problem here is that it is not an issue with God speaking to the unregenerate, but with how you are suggesting that the Holy Spirit also fell on the unregenerate along with the 120. The scenario your are presenting (and I understand that you are doing so to maintain consistency with 1Cor 14) presents a number of serious problems with the first being that it supports the view of Universalism in that as the Spirit fell upon both the Believers and unbelievers that all will be Saved; in fact, why would the Jews have bothered accepting Jesus when all they had to say was "Hey, as the Holy Spirit fell on us also then who needs this Jesus you are speaking of?"

Even though this particular account appears to stand in opposition to every other occurrence of tongues, particularly that Paul has gone to some length to explain that tongues will always be given in a form of communication that no man will ever be able to understand; we need to remember that the Day of Pentecost was a once off event in that the Father had decided to provide some of the Jews with an opportunity to embrace the Christ.

Just in case you missed my late edit:

There was an unsaved girl in a town I lived in who was taken to my church by her school friends. While they were praying for her, one started speaking in tongues, and she began to cry in repentance. Come to find out, she understood in English what was being spoken in tongues. Everyone else just heard tongues. She was given the gift of interpretation of tongues.

 

[Biblicist]

Well, somewhere there is a truth not considered by either of you IMO.

They received the prayer tongue of their spirit first, and the "noise" of them praying/praising in 'that' tongue, which produces 'self edification' and "which no man understands" drew a crowd. When the crowd gathered then the Holy Spirit came UPON them again and manifested a language through them for the edification of the people that, the Holy Spirit's 'gift of tongues' was a gift for. And His gift was manifested so those people could be edified in their languages as they were being spoken by the disciples. Two different tongues from two different spirits....one 'a holy spirit', and the other 'the Holy Spirit'.

Hey, that works for me, anyhow. But we can all wait until glory to find out if I'm right or not....right?

Wow . . . now that's a bit of a tongue twister!!!
This is where the Trichotomist understanding of the makeup of man can add in way too much extraneous information. To keep things brief, when we look at what Paul has to say throughout 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 we find that the only source/agent of tongues is with that of the Holy Spirit;

NIV Note the use of the NIV's use of capital 'S' for Spirit

• 1Cor 12:4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.
• 1Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
• 1Cor 12:8 To one there is given through the Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12:11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12: 13a For we were all baptized by one Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12: 13b . . . and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
• 1Cor 14:1-2 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 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.
• 1Cor 14:12 . . . Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit,
• (1Cor 14:16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit,)
  • 1Cor 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
  • 1Cor 14:15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
  • 1Cor 14:32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
• 1Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit

Apart from the agency of the Holy Spirit, no Biblical writer speaks of how a supposed human spirit can speak in tongues. The view that a supposed human spirit can do so actually denigrates the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit in that it undermines his place in the Economy of God, it is a very dangerous position to hold to in my view.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Wow . . . now that's a bit of a tongue twister!!!
This is where the Trichotomist understanding of the makeup of man can add in way too much extraneous information. To keep things brief, when we look at what Paul has to say throughout 1 Cor 12, 13 & 14 we find that the only source/agent of tongues is with that of the Holy Spirit;

NIV Note the use of the NIV's use of capital 'S' for Spirit

• 1Cor 12:4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.
• 1Cor 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
• 1Cor 12:8 To one there is given through the Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12:11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12: 13a For we were all baptized by one Spirit . . .
• 1Cor 12: 13b . . . and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
• 1Cor 14:1-2 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 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.
• 1Cor 14:12 . . . Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit,
• (1Cor 14:16 Otherwise when you are praising God in the Spirit,)
  • 1Cor 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
  • 1Cor 14:15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
  • 1Cor 14:32 The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. [or the S/spirit of me as per v.16]
• 1Cor 14:37 If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit

Apart from the agency of the Holy Spirit, no Biblical writer speaks of how a supposed human spirit can speak in tongues. The view that a supposed human spirit can do so actually denigrates the Person and Ministry of the Holy Spirit in that it undermines his place in the Economy of God, it is a very dangerous position to hold to in my view.

Yes, I don't agree with Hillsage's views on spirits. He says the Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9. What do you think Biblicist

 

[Biblicist]

Just in case you missed my late edit:

There was an unsaved girl in a town I lived in who was taken to my church by her school friends. While they were praying for her, one started speaking in tongues, and she began to cry in repentance. Come to find out, she understood in English what was being spoken in tongues. Everyone else just heard tongues. She was given the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Even though these things are a remote possibility, I tend to place very little weight on such testimonies as they tend to be little more than the result of a misunderstanding or where a young person in particular can often be seeking a bit of attention. Don't forget, at least within the congregational setting, of which the testimony was placed within, Paul says that absolutely no one will ever be able to understand what is being said by the Holy Spirit - absolutely no one.

Of course the important question to be asked, which becomes the final arbitrator of this testimony is, were the words she claimed she understood words that were being directed to the Father or to the congregation?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Even though these things are a remote possibility, I tend to place very little weight on such testimonies as they tend to be little more than the result of a misunderstanding or where a young person in particular can often be seeking a bit of attention. Don't forget, at least within the congregational setting, of which the testimony was placed within, Paul says that absolutely no one will ever be able to understand what is being said by the Holy Spirit - absolutely no one.

Of course the important question to be asked, which becomes the final arbitrator of this testimony is was the words she claimed she understood words that were being directed to the Father or to the congregation?

I'm curious to know what your definition of the gift of interpretation of tongues is, seeing as THAT is what is being claimed in Arizona, not that anyone understood the tongue naturally, which they didn't.

 

[Biblicist]

Yes, I don't agree with Hillsage's views on spirits. He says the Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. Romans 8:9. What do you think Biblicist

Yes, I agree with you in that there is no separate Spirit of Christ alongside that of a Holy Spirit, there is only one, which is the Holy Spirit who is the Third member of the Godhead; but Hilly is not alone with this particular perspective.

This is why it is vital to understand how and why the various translations have struggled to correctly convey if Paul meant the Holy Spirit (Spirit) or with a human spirit (spirit), where we also need to come to grips with what Paul in particular refers to as a human spirit; does he intend to say that there is a separate entity that we refer to as distinct human spirit within man (Trichotomy) or is he using the two terms soul and spirit interchangeably (Dichotomy) or is he using the term spirit to refer to our attitudes, demeanor and outlook etc, which is my own position which makes me a functional-Dichotomist.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Yes, I agree with you in that there is no separate Spirit of Christ alongside that of a Holy Spirit, there is only one, which is the Holy Spirit who is the Third member of the Godhead; but Hilly is not alone with this particular perspective.

This is why it is vital to understand how and why the various translations have struggled to correctly convey if Paul meant the Holy Spirit (Spirit) or with a human spirit (spirit), where we also need to come to grips with what Paul in particular refers to as a human spirit; does he intend to say that there is a separate entity that we refer to as distinct human spirit within man (Trichotomy) or is he using the two terms soul and spirit interchangeably (Dichotomy) or is he using the term spirit to refer to our attitudes, demeanor and outlook etc, which is my own position which makes me a functional-Dichotomist.

I'm of the same as you. With my own limited understanding, I visualize the Trinity per "in our own likeness." Thus man is a picture of the Trinity.

Body - Christ
Mind/thoughts/reasoning - Father
Spirit/Emotions/Power - Spirit

Christ could see in His mind's eye what the Father was doing, and do it with the power of the Spirit.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I'm of the same as you. With my own limited understanding, I visualize the Trinity per "in our own likeness." Thus man is a picture of the Trinity.

Body - Christ
Mind/thoughts/reasoning - Father
Spirit/Emotions/Power - Spirit

Christ could see in His mind's eye what the Father was doing, and do it with the power of the Spirit.

duplicate

 

[Biblicist]

I'm curious to know what your definition of the gift of interpretation of tongues is, seeing as THAT is what is being claimed in Arizona, not that anyone understood the tongue naturally, which they didn't.

To be honest, when I asked;

Of course the important question to be asked, which becomes the final arbitrator of this testimony is, were the words she claimed she understood words that were being directed to the Father or to the congregation?​

My question was designed, dare I say, as a bit of a trap in that if you were to have said that the Lord spoke words of encouragement to her, then I would have replied that she was making it up as the Lord never . . . absolutely never speaks to an individual or a congregation through tongues as the Spirit always directs His words of praise to the Father. Now if someone had of prophesied (in English) with a word of comfort then this would be another matter.

But most importantly, I fully agree with you that tongues are always spoken by the Holy Spirit in a form of communication that no man is ever able to understand (i.e., angelic tongues); of course this differs from the account in Acts 2 which is why I understand that you believe that the Holy Spirit gave the unregenerate the knowledge of what the 120 were saying. But as I said, as this was a unique event we have no need to try and equate Acts with Corinthians.

As for the Manifestation of the Spirit of interpretation, when anyone provides an interpretation, which should ideally (but not exclusively) be undertaken by the person who provided the tongue, the interpretation must be inline with words of praise or adoration to the Father which is what the Holy Spirit will always speak within the congregational setting. If the Spirit desires to speak to an individual or to a congregation he will always do this in prophecy and in the language of those who are present.

Now when it comes to our personal times of praise and prayer, this is another matter. After we have stopped praising God through tongues, we can then ask the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues (prayer) to the Father on a given issue, which will be something that we are thinking about in say English, but at the same time the Holy Spirit who knows the hearts of all men and with the details of their situation, as a result he will intercede on our behalf in perfect prayer. Thankfully, we will never be able to employ interpretation after the Holy Spirit has been interceding on our behalf, if this were in fact possible, I would probably be terrified with the knowledge of the information that the Holy Spirit is speaking to the Father - there is only so much that we humans can probably comfortably bear!

 

[Biblicist]

I'm of the same as you. With my own limited understanding, I visualize the Trinity per "in our own likeness." Thus man is a picture of the Trinity.

Body - Christ
Mind/thoughts/reasoning - Father
Spirit/Emotions/Power - Spirit

Christ could see in His mind's eye what the Father was doing, and do it with the power of the Spirit.

When it comes to the Believer, I do see our human makeup as resembling a trinity (small 't'), in that besides each natural person having a body and a soul, the new Believer is then 'made complete' by having the Holy Spirit residing within him, where maybe this was the state that both Adam and Eve were in prior to the fall, well at least this is how I view their initial state.

A Trichotomost will of course say that the supposed human spirit is dead and only made alive when they receive the Holy Spirit at their conversion; but what is often not discussed is what they each mean by this, does the Holy Spirit infuse himself with the 'human spirit' or does he reside alongside the 'human spirit' and the soul, where the Believer now becomes a four-part being?

Yes, there could be some validity with how you have connected the various aspects of man to that of the Godhead but at this point of time I am still not sure what I believe (or what exactly what I think that I am supposed to believe) on this matter.

 

[1stcenturylady]

To be honest, when I asked;

Of course the important question to be asked, which becomes the final arbitrator of this testimony is, were the words she claimed she understood words that were being directed to the Father or to the congregation?​

My question was designed, dare I say, as a bit of a trap in that if you were to have said that the Lord spoke words of encouragement to her, then I would have replied that she was making it up as the Lord never . . . absolutely never speaks to an individual or a congregation through tongues as the Spirit always directs His words of praise to the Father. Now if someone had of prophesied (in English) with a word of comfort then this would be another matter.

But most importantly, I fully agree with you that tongues are always spoken by the Holy Spirit in a form of communication that no man is ever able to understand (i.e., angelic tongues); of course this differs from the account in Acts 2 which is why I understand that you believe that the Holy Spirit gave the unregenerate the knowledge of what the 120 were saying. But as I said, as this was a unique event we have no need to try and equate Acts with Corinthians.

As for the Manifestation of the Spirit of interpretation, when anyone provides an interpretation, which should ideally (but not exclusively) be undertaken by the person who provided the tongue, the interpretation must be inline with words of praise or adoration to the Father which is what the Holy Spirit will always speak within the congregational setting. If the Spirit desires to speak to an individual or to a congregation he will always do this in prophecy and in the language of those who are present.

Now when it comes to our personal times of praise and prayer, this is another matter. After we have stopped praising God through tongues, we can then ask the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues (prayer) to the Father on a given issue, which will be something that we are thinking about in say English, but at the same time the Holy Spirit who knows the hearts of all men and with the details of their situation, as a result he will intercede on our behalf in perfect prayer. Thankfully, we will never be able to employ interpretation after the Holy Spirit has been interceding on our behalf, if this were in fact possible, I would probably be terrified with the knowledge of the information that the Holy Spirit is speaking to the Father - there is only so much that we humans can probably comfortably bear!

LOL I agree, sometimes it is best not to know - it can be none of our business what God has to put us through to correct our character (trials).

But I will have to disagree with tongues in a congregational setting needing to be praise TO the Father. What you are describing is our own prayer and praise language TO God that doesn't need interpretation. The SIGN of tongues.

In church, the GIFT of diverse kinds of tongues is what is in need of interpretation because these are FROM God to us. These are not praise or prayer, they are described in verse 6.

I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied (interpreted); for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. 6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching?

 

[1stcenturylady]

When it comes to the Believer, I do see our human makeup as resembling a trinity (small 't'), in that besides each natural person having a body and a soul, the new Believer is then 'made complete' by having the Holy Spirit residing within him, where maybe this was the state that both Adam and Eve were in prior to the fall, well at least this is how I view their initial state.

A Trichotomost will of course say that the supposed human spirit is dead and only made alive when they receive the Holy Spirit at their conversion; but what is often not discussed is what they each mean by this, does the Holy Spirit infuse himself with the 'human spirit' or does he reside alongside the 'human spirit' and the soul, where the Believer now becomes a four-part being?

Yes, there could be some validity with how you have connected the various aspects of man to that of the Godhead but at this point of time I am still not sure what I believe (or what exactly what I think that I am supposed to believe) on this matter.

Look at OT prophecy of Christ, and how He is all three. (No, I'm not Jesus only, but I don't condemn them either as heretics as some hyper-religious Trinitarian Christians sometimes do.)

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

The three all together are Mighty God

The Spirit is Wonderful Counselor
The Father is Everlasting Father
The Son is Prince of Peace