Has God ever told any tongues-speaking believer that they are speaking gibberish

[swordsman1]

Jesus already filled them in John 20. But for the Church and all Christians thereafter, it was on the Day of Pentecost.

See post #617

 

[1stcenturylady]

See post #617

They received the Holy Spirit, but Jesus was saying that He couldn't stay, but that He would send back His Spirit that would always be with them, and US.

 

[swordsman1]

They received the Holy Spirit, but Jesus was saying that He couldn't stay, but that He would send back His Spirit that would always be with them, and US.

It doesn't say they received a thing in John 20. Jesus only gave a command, which they fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.

 

[1stcenturylady]

It doesn't say they received a thing in John 20. Jesus only gave a command, which they fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.

If that's what you want to believe, fine. We could play on this merry-go-round all day. It is not beneficial to either of us.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Baptism of the Holy Spirit as a subsequent experience is a debunked old-school Pentecostal doctrine, that been rejected by virtually every theologian, including Pentecostal and charismatic ones. May I suggest you read the commentaries from Pentecostalism's most respected theologian, Gordon Fee, and the respected charismatic Wayne Grudem, which will help you to understand that all believers receive the BHS at salvation. I have previously posted them here:

Grudem:
Speak in Tongues - essential :

Fee:
Speak in Tongues - essential :

I will await the verses that say gifts are only received after mustering up enough faith.

Wrong. A number of the Early Church Fathers wrote that they believed that the baptism with the Spirit was a subsequent event after conversion.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If that's what you want to believe, fine. We could play on this merry-go-round all day. It is not beneficial to either of us.

It is interesting that uses Gordon Fee as one of his authorities for this, but rejects Fee's support of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, is for the Church today. O Consistency, thou art a jewel!!

 

[1stcenturylady]

It is interesting that uses Gordon Fee as one of his authorities for this, but rejects Fee's support of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, is for the Church today. O Consistency, thou art a jewel!!

Personally, I don't know who Gordon Fee is. Is he a good teacher?

 

[1stcenturylady]

Personally, I don't know who Gordon Fee is. Is he a good teacher?

I just went into Amazon.com and looked inside his commentary on 1 Corinthains and he made the comment about 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 being spurious! Wow, I need to look into that!

34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Personally, I don't know who Gordon Fee is. Is he a good teacher?

He is a full-Gospel Bible Commentator. He has written really good commentaries on 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and the Holy Spirit in the Ministry of Paul. I have read these three and find them excellent. If you can get hold of the 1 Corinthians one, you will enjoy reading it because he fully believes that the supernatural Spiritual gifts are for today's church and he comments on 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 with that in view.

 

[1stcenturylady]

He is a full-Gospel Bible Commentator. He has written really good commentaries on 1 Corinthians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and the Holy Spirit in the Ministry of Paul. I have read these three and find them excellent. If you can get hold of the 1 Corinthians one, you will enjoy reading it because he fully believes that the supernatural Spiritual gifts are for today's church and he comments on 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 with that in view.

Read #628

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Read #628

Well, in actual practice women not only speak but exercise leadership roles in most modern churches. How does Mr Fee justify his statement? Wait. tell me the page number and I will look at it in my copy of the commentary.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Read #628

I found the pages and read through them. He goes into the different reasons for the insertion of the section and discusses the possibilities and difficulties of the different reasons why it is there. Because the earliest manuscripts we have are from the 4th Century, we don't know whether the section is in the earlier ones which have now been lost. He says that the section could have been a marginal note inserted into one of the earlier copies by someone who wanted to harmonise it with the references concerning the role of women in Paul's Timothy letter. It may have been inserted (in error?) into the text by a copyist who might have disagreed with the fact that women could pray and prophesy in church. Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul gave that freedom to women, so it seems that the section in chapter 14 seems to be out of harmony with it.

Also, the section refers to the Law. It is strange that Paul writing to gentile Corinthians would mention the Law. Also, in other places when he does mention the Law, he actually quotes the bit of the Law he wants his readers to see. In this section he does not. It is then feasible to think that a Jewish believer might have written it into the margin of a copy that was used to make other copies, and another copyist inserted the section into the text so as not to offend Jewish Christians. Seeing that there was still a division between Jewish and Gentile Christians well into at least the Second Century and possibly the Third, it is not impossible to think that a reference to women not speaking in church would find itself into a copy of Paul's letter, and was part of the 4th Century document that had survived.

Also, Fee points out that some linguists have noted a significant difference in style in the section, to the rest of the chapter. Also, it seems to be an interruption to the semantic flow of the chapter, which is mainly about tongues and prophecy. To suddenly come across an unrelated section like this one, one would immediately think, "What is this doing here?" It is like someone writing a chapter on a certain breed of cat, and suddenly writing a couple of sentences about a stray rescue dog. One would wonder, "What's that got to do with the chapter on cats?" Then he might discover that rescue dogs is mentioned in another chapter, and the sentence would have fitted into that chapter better.

Fee seems to come to the conclusion that the section does not fit the flow of the chapter, and therefore is unreliable to form a specific instruction to churches on the basis of it. He cannot give a clear reason why it has been inserted, because we don't really know, and all we can do is to make an educated guess.

I think that this is why most churches except for the strict, semi exclusive ones like the Open Brethren, disregard the section and allow women to assume speaking and leadership roles.

It is interesting to note that some of the extreme "cult-like" Pentecostal sects do denigrate their women and make them wear dowdy clothes and keep them in silent submission, to the point of semi-slavery.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well, in actual practice women not only speak but exercise leadership roles in most modern churches. How does Mr Fee justify his statement? Wait. tell me the page number and I will look at it in my copy of the commentary.

Footnotes on page 774

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Footnotes on page 774

The footnotes on that page seem to deal with 15:29-34, which don't relate.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I found the pages and read through them. He goes into the different reasons for the insertion of the section and discusses the possibilities and difficulties of the different reasons why it is there. Because the earliest manuscripts we have are from the 4th Century, we don't know whether the section is in the earlier ones which have now been lost. He says that the section could have been a marginal note inserted into one of the earlier copies by someone who wanted to harmonise it with the references concerning the role of women in Paul's Timothy letter. It may have been inserted (in error?) into the text by a copyist who might have disagreed with the fact that women could pray and prophesy in church. Earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul gave that freedom to women, so it seems that the section in chapter 14 seems to be out of harmony with it.

Also, the section refers to the Law. It is strange that Paul writing to gentile Corinthians would mention the Law. Also, in other places when he does mention the Law, he actually quotes the bit of the Law he wants his readers to see. In this section he does not. It is then feasible to think that a Jewish believer might have written it into the margin of a copy that was used to make other copies, and another copyist inserted the section into the text so as not to offend Jewish Christians. Seeing that there was still a division between Jewish and Gentile Christians well into at least the Second Century and possibly the Third, it is not impossible to think that a reference to women not speaking in church would find itself into a copy of Paul's letter, and was part of the 4th Century document that had survived.

Also, Fee points out that some linguists have noted a significant difference in style in the section, to the rest of the chapter. Also, it seems to be an interruption to the semantic flow of the chapter, which is mainly about tongues and prophecy. To suddenly come across an unrelated section like this one, one would immediately think, "What is this doing here?" It is like someone writing a chapter on a certain breed of cat, and suddenly writing a couple of sentences about a stray rescue dog. One would wonder, "What's that got to do with the chapter on cats?" Then he might discover that rescue dogs is mentioned in another chapter, and the sentence would have fitted into that chapter better.

Fee seems to come to the conclusion that the section does not fit the flow of the chapter, and therefore is unreliable to form a specific instruction to churches on the basis of it. He cannot give a clear reason why it has been inserted, because we don't really know, and all we can do is to make an educated guess.

I think that this is why most churches except for the strict, semi exclusive ones like the Open Brethren, disregard the section and allow women to assume speaking and leadership roles.

It is interesting to note that some of the extreme "cult-like" Pentecostal sects do denigrate their women and make them wear dowdy clothes and keep them in silent submission, to the point of semi-slavery.

I read the passage without 34-35 and it flowed perfectly.

I checked my Tynsdale NT and the verses are there.

 

[1stcenturylady]

The footnotes on that page seem to deal with 15:29-34, which don't relate.

Maybe in your edition, pages don't match the one I looked in.

I've ordered it and it should arrive in a couple weeks.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I read the passage without 34-35 and it flowed perfectly.

I checked my Tynsdale NT and the verses are there.

Tyndale did use the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for his translation instead of the Vulgate which was the principal version at the time. And his translation forms the foundation for the KJV. But still, he would have had just the 4th Century Greek manuscript to work with, and so the verses would have been there. It would be interesting if someone happened to find a 1st century copy of the letter and found the verses missing! That would put the cat among the pigeons for some churches!

 

[1stcenturylady]

Well it's after midnight, so better try to go be earlier than usual to try to get myself back into a proper schedule, except this is the time of night you are on. Oh well. If I can't sleep, I'll be back.

 

[Antig]

Everyone has different opinions i guess. Sometimes we see scripture in a different way. Finding the right meaning can be hard. Its a learning curve that hopefully God will help us with in life.

 

[swordsman1]

Wrong. A number of the Early Church Fathers wrote that they believed that the baptism with the Spirit was a subsequent event after conversion.

You think Fee and Grudem (the most respected theologians from your side of the fence) got it wrong? Not to mention the vast majority of other theologians?

Which of the church fathers took the old school Pentecostal view of the baptism of the Spirit? I know the Orthodox/Catholic church adopted the view that Spirit baptism occurred at water baptism/confirmation, but as far as I am aware the old Pentecostal view of it being a subsequent experience evidenced by tongues is unique to the 20th century.