I have two questions regarding tongues ?

[Bob Carabbio]

hi there

I have two questions regarding tongues ?

First the bible says if there is no interpreter there speaker should be quite, but how do you know if there is someone in the congregation with the gift of interpretation, because you speak ?

One would speak in a tongue to a congregation BECAUSE he is specifically BURDENED by the Holy Spirit to deliver an utterance in a tongue. The Holy SPirit will then HOLD the service so that you can speak, The Holy SPirit will also burden somebody to "interpret", and they'll be ready to do so when you finish (unless your are also to interpret). You Wouldn't have been burdened to deliver the tongue, if there was no interpreter. Anybody in the congregation present could be burdened to interpret as the Holy Spirit wills.

The "Gifts" are temporary empowerments, given as needed, and when the gift is discharged, it's gone. We don't OWN the Gifts, the Holy Spirit does.

Second, if a tongue is given in a heavenly language, how do you know the the interpretation is correct ? If you have no way to verify it - like you are able to in the event of a human language being supernaturally spoken ?

Who said the "Tongue was in a "Heavenly Language"?? Who says there even IS a "Heavenly language?? And who cares anyway?? If the language was Onabasilu, or Swahili you STILL wouldn't know if the interpretation was correct, would you???

The interpretation will be given by either yourself or somebody else NEITHER OF whom will have any idea what he language was, or what it said. the Interpretation comes directly from the holy Spirit and just FLOWS through the one who interprets.

In many cases ANOTHER in the congregation will ALSO have the interpretation, but NOT the burden to speak it, and so can confirm.

 

[ltwin]

In many cases ANOTHER in the congregation will ALSO have the interpretation, but NOT the burden to speak it, and so can confirm.

Exactly. Ever witnessed two people both trying to interpret at the same time LOL. Talk about church drama.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

there are three records of believers supernaturally speaking in a human language

CORRECTION: There's actually only ONE instance where specific human languages are identified.

In the other two instances, it would only be an ASSUMPTION that known human languages were spoken, and there's NO indication that ANY "known human languages" were spoken at Corinth.

Paul doesn't criticise the "Tongues" spoken by the Corinthians - only their undisciplined USE of them in a congregational meeting.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

There is no gift of interpretation.

INCORRECT - the gift of interpretation is alluded to in BOTH 1 Cor 12, and in 1 Cor 14. I have been burdened to provide interpretation of tongues spoken in congregational meetings.

The prophecy is judged according to the word.

At ONE level yes - obviously a "prophetic utterance that is OVERTLY CONTRARY TO THE WORD would be automatically disqualified. But in cases of "Word of Knowledge, or Word of Wisdom - nothing in the Word would necessarily provide confirmation, or disqualification.

Pentecost was where glossolalia happens.

ONE of the places, of course, but certainly not the ONLY place as recorded in the Word.

The Holy Ghost intervenes in groanings as we pray.

Correction - Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Obviously no "Tongues" here. This, of course isn't the ONLY WAY the Holy Spirit intervenes - read 1 Cor 14.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

So to be clear thing Paul understand ALL mysteries - had ALL knowledge and had ALL faith - so you saying he was basically like God ?

Except, of course that PAUL said clearly that HE "only saw through the glass Darkly" so he most certainly DID NOT "understand all mysteries", and DIDN'T "Have all knowledge" by any means.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Exactly. Ever witnessed two people both trying to interpret at the same time LOL. Talk about church drama.

I almost got stuck in one of those years ago.

There was a message in a tongue, and I was burdened with the interpretation.

But before I gave it, another gal (who was a member of "the WAY INTERNATIONAL" got up, and ripped off an "interpretation" that she'd made up (the way the WAY taught their people to do). I was still pretty new to it all, so didn't give mine (it felt like it would burn a hole in my gut). what I SHOULD HAVE DONE was wait for her to finish, and then just given what I had - but I was less mature then.

Several years later, at a FGBMFI dinner meeting, there was a tongue, and the fellow on my Left started to interpret, but then I was burdened to interpret, and when he suddenly stopped in mid message, I picked it up, and carried it for 15-20 seconds until the "flow" stopped - and the fellow on my Right picked it up and finished it. I've been pentecostal for 40 years, and that's the ONLY "Hat trick" interpretation that I've seen.

 

[Biblicist]

First, does it agree with the Word of God? Second, are the people giving the message and interpretation known to the congregation as born again, Spirit-filled Christians living lives in accordance with Christian discipleship? If the content of the message is agreeable to the Word and the people are Christians in good standing with the congregation than that would seem to be all that is required.

How do you know if its the right part of the bible , so it may line up with scripture, but how do you know the interpreter is still giving the right interpretation , even if it lines up with the scripture

Here’s where the common classic-Pentecostal misconception that tongues + interpretation = prophecy has an obvious problem in that tongues is never used by the Spirit to speak to man where he ONLY ever speaks this way to the Father.

When a Pentecostal or charismatic objects that this formula is wrong, you only need to ask us for any examples from within the Scriptures where the formula tongues + interpretation = prophecy is found or where Paul tells us that tongues can be used to speak to man. Obviously no one will be able to do this.

Within the congregational setting, we are of course only permitted to provide three words of praise to the Father through tongues and even when these tongues are articulated by either the person who provided the words of praise to the Father, or by someone else who articulated the tongue that someone else initially provided, then it can be difficult to confirm the content of these words of praise as praise is simply praise and unless someone says something outrageous such as “thankyou that we can pray to Mary or have her intercede for us”, then it can be difficult to check a word of praise against the Scriptures; as any word of praise given during the meeting is to be a word of praise and never a word of instruction the Written Word may be of little help.

First, does it agree with the Word of God? Second, are the people giving the message and interpretation known to the congregation as born again, Spirit-filled Christians living lives in accordance with Christian discipleship? If the content of the message is agreeable to the Word and the people are Christians in good standing with the congregation than that would seem to be all that is required.

Here’s where you are at a slight disadvantage as you obviously have no experience with a congregation that permits the Holy Spirit to work through their members in prophecy and tongues. As others have already mentioned, for anyone who is a member of a Full Gospel congregation they would know that there will be others present who can interpret and after a few times where they have provided a word of praise in a tongue they should then become comfortable with praying for an articulation themselves.

Is it possible for a human to understand ALL mysteries - have ALL knowledge and have ALL faith

You first quoted 1Cor 13:1 where Paul says, “Though I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love…”, where some version employ “If”, it should be pointed out that Paul is contrasting his ability to speak in a number of human languages along with his ability to pray in angelic tongues but if he does not have love then all if for nothing. So his ‘therefore’ or ‘if’ is being employed to say that all things must be done in love.

Paul is certainly not suggesting with his use of (Εὰν ταῖς γλώσσαι&#962 that he cannot speak in human tongues as he obviously could speak in Aramaic and Hebrew and as a Roman citizen he was most likely socially conversant with Greek and Latin as well.

When it comes to praying in the Spirit (tongues), we know from 1Cor 14:6, 14, 15, 18 that Paul both spoke in tongues probably more than most and in chapter 14 he repeatedly stresses (14:2) that when we pray in the Spirit (tongues) that no man can ever understand what is being said. He did not say that man will frequently be unable to understand but that we will NEVER understand what the Spirit says to the Father unless it is articulated by the person who is speaking words of praise to the Father in the Spirit or that someone articulates what was said by the person who was speaking in tongues.

Even though most (almost all) translations replace the Greek word phonos which is our English ‘sound’ with ‘language/s’, this tends to miss Paul’s point where he is contrasting the intelligibility of tongues where it is not language per se but sounds which may also have a connection with Rom 8:26 “with “groanings too deep for words”.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](1Co 14:5-11 NASB) Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but even more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edifying.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](6,7) But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues, what will I profit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation or of knowledge or of prophecy or of teaching? Yet even lifeless things, either flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](8) For if the bugle produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](9,10) So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages [sounds] in the world, and no kind [sound] is without meaning.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](11) If then I do not know the meaning of the language [sound], I will be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.​

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]

As for Paul “knowing all mysteries”, as he had a unique relationship with the Lord, we can safely say that he knew all mysteries that were knowable or that had been given for us to know about. So yes, Paul certainly knew all those mysteries that God had chosen to reveal to man which should be no surprise to any of us as he chose Paul to provide most of the New Testament for us.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[pauluk3]

You have faith that the Holy Spirit has placed gifts in the church and that He is in control. We should also keep in mind that there is a spiritual gift known as distinguishing between spirits. These people would be able to discern if something was off with a tongue or interpretation.



It's important to understand what Paul is saying here and what he is not saying here. His aim is to place the spiritual gifts in their proper place. That proper place is in the service of love, for without love all the gifts in the world amount to nothing.

Therefore, Paul starts by saying, "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Even angelic tongues used without love are not beautiful--only crude noise.

He then moves on to prophetic powers, another of the spiritual gifts. He then mentions "understand all mysteries and knowledge." This corresponds to the spiritual gifts of the utterance of wisdom and the utterance of knowledge listed in 1 Corinthians 12:8. Next, comes "all faith, so as to remove mountains." This corresponds to the gift of faith listed in 1 Corinthians 12:9 (note this is not the same thing as saving faith which is available to all people).

Therefore, the first 2 sentences of this paragraph are actually just listing spiritual gifts that one might be tempted to take pride in (tongues, prophecy, the utterance of wisdom, the utterance of knowledge, and the gift of (extraordinary) faith).

He then moves out of the realms of spiritual gifts, but he still speaks of acts that Christians could be expected to take pride in, namely good works and voluntary martyrdom.

The point is that whether one operates in spiritual gifts, does many good works, or voluntarily delivers up oneself to death for Christ's sake none of it means anything without love. For we are told elsewhere that God is love.

It isn't possible for humans to have "all knowledge", but it is possible for them to have the gifts of the utterance of knowledge and the utterance of wisdom and the gift of extraordinary faith, etc. These are all real gifts that people can potentially take misplaced pride in. This is what Paul is warning against.

Likewise, the gift of tongues is a real gift. There is no reason to believe that one cannot speak in the tongues of angels if given utterance by the Holy Spirit.

However, whether Paul was simply speaking of extremes to make a point or not it really does not matter from the Pentecostal perspective. Whether you call it heavenly, angelic or gibberish, we find that glossolalia fits the description of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians perfectly.

If you don't want to call it "angelic" language, feel free not to, but it does fit the biblical record.



Yes, I am familiar with Charles Parham.

So you must be aware that there was no glossolalia in the church until Charles Parham arrived on the scene in the 1900 ?

 

[Alithis]

hi there

I have two questions regarding tongues ?

First the bible says if there is no interpreter there speaker should be quite, but how do you know if there is someone in the congregation with the gift of interpretation, because you speak ?

Second, if a tongue is given in a heavenly language, how do you know the the interpretation is correct ? If you have no way to verify it - like you are able to in the event of a human language being supernaturally spoken ?

(haven't read through the thread yet )

the Holy Spirit is the interpreter and he may bestow that ability on any willing heart and any time he so pleases ..
he may gift that ability to one who is often gifted with it or in their absence he could use the church cat ! (or donkey if they have one ) just as often the one who spoke in tongues ..then also speaks the same in the tongue common to the room .

also a need for interpretation is only a guideline to maintain a sense of order .,it is never given as a law and we can never impose man made law on things of the Spirit for the Holy Spirit is the master and teacher in such things.

 

[jiminpa]

Isn't this just a rewrite of the same lame attempt at discrediting the Biblical belief in tongues from a few months ago?

 

[ltwin]

So you must be aware that there was no glossolalia in the church until Charles Parham arrived on the scene in the 1900 ?

That just isn't true. If you look throughout history there are plenty of indications that manifestations such as glossolalia were observed and described. Parham was seminal in formulating the doctrine of initial evidence, but he did not "invent" Christian glossolalia.

In addition to 1 Corinthians, we have much evidence that glossolalic or ecstatic speech was present in Christian communities in both Antiquity and in more modern times. In addition to accounts that the gift of tongues remained within the church (which do not distinguish between human and spiritual languages), there are descriptions of what seem to be glossolalia called other things, such as what the mystics called jubilation. Jubilation was described by figures such as St. Augustine (354-430), Isidore of Seville (died 636), and Gregory the Great (634-687).

In addition to glossolalia by other names, we have in Christian history accounts that clearly connect the gift of tongues to ecstatic speech. Tertullian (AD 160-225) writes in Against Marcion 5.8 (a text written to oppose the heresy of Marcionism) the following challenge to Marcion:

Therefore let Marcion exhibit gifts of his god: some prophets, who have spoken yet not from human sense, but from the spirit of God, who have both predicted future events and conveyed hidden things of the heart; let him produce some psalm, some vision, some speech, insofar as it is spiritual, in ecstasy--that is, in amentia [madness]--if, perhaps, he undertakes an interpretation of tongues. Let him show to me as well a woman who prophesies among them, from these his great holy women, I say. If I can proffer all these things easily, and assuredly these are in agreement with the rules and directions and instructions of the Creator, without doubt Christ and the spirit and the apostle belong to my God.​

[The "apostle" mentioned is the Apostle Paul, who Marcion believed was Christ's chief apostle.]

Tertullian here notes that his side can produce all of these spiritual gifts in accordance with Christ's placing them within the Church. Tertullian notes elsewhere in his writings that spiritual gifts were evident at the church in Carthage. In his treatise On the Soul, he describes "a sister among us receives gifts of revelation, which she experiences during the rites on the Lord's day."

Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179) spoke in tongues and left behind the Lingua Ignota ("Unknown Language"), which she purportedly received by revelation.

French theologian and mystic Jean Gerson (1363-1429) writes:

The hilarity of the devout . . . in a certain wonderful and unexplainable sweetness seizes the mind . . . so that now it does not contain itself. There happens some sort of spasm, ecstasy or departure . . . the mind springs forth; it leaps, or dances by means of the gestures of the body, which are comely, and then it jubilates in an inexpressible way . . . the purity of the heart sings along with the voice.​

The early Quakers most likely practiced glossolalia, as George Fox (1624-1691) described:

We received often the pouring down of the Spirit upon us . . . as in the days of old, and our hearts were made glad, and our tongues loosed, and our mouths opened, and we spoke with new tongues, as the Lord gave us utterance, and as his Spirit led us.​

During the Great Awakening of the 18th century, Thomas Walsh, a friend of John Wesley, recounted: "This morning the Lord gave me a language I knew not of, raising my soul to him in a wonderful manner."

A critic of George Whitfield described his revival meetings during the Great Awakening as follows:

These meetings would continue until 10, 11, or 12 o'clock at night; in the midst of them sometimes 10, 20, 30, and sometimes many more would scream and cry out, or send forth the most lamentable groans, while others made great manifestations of joy by clapping their hands, uttering ecstatic expressions, singing psalms, and inviting and exhorting others.​

It is well documented that glossolalia occurred in American revival meetings prior to Pentecostalism.

 

[Alithis]

Isn't this just a rewrite of the same lame attempt at discrediting the Biblical belief in tongues from a few months ago?

... i was having the same feeling

 

[Biblicist]

So you must be aware that there was no glossolalia in the church until Charles Parham arrived on the scene in the 1900 ?

As you reside in the UK I'm surprised that you have succombed to the American version of history with Parham. You Brits began to speak in tongues back in the 1830's with the Irvingites. Of course we also have various records where tongues was encountered up until the Third century where the Church entered into its Dark Age where even justification by faith was essentially lost for centuries.

 

[Biblicist]

Isn't this just a rewrite of the same lame attempt at discrediting the Biblical belief in tongues from a few months ago?

Hows the saying go, "Ever learning but never understanding".

 

[Biblicist]

That just isn't true. If you look throughout history there are plenty of indications

That was a very good post, though I probably wouldn't use the word 'ecstatic'.

 

[tturt]

Scriptures:

"To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:" I Cor 12:10

Tongues are a a sign TO unbelievers OF believers (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17).

All tongues can be interpreted (I Cor 14:13)

 

[HOLYTHUNDER3]

It seems that you may have inadvertantly referred to glossalia as xenolalia as there is no need to translate what is said in a known human language (xenolalia) such as we see on the Day of Pentecost. When it comes to the every day application of praying in the Spirit during the congregational setting, this will always require a translation as glossolalia is always given by the Spirit in angelic tongues.

I must have had them mixed up then. No big deal, I believe my point stands.

 

[Biblicist]

I must have had them mixed up then. No big deal, I believe my point stands.

It's easy to do.

 

[MissRowy]

Also read Acts 2:1-7 because that is a guide of how speaking in tongues happened for the disciples. Speaking in tongues is the most powerful way of communicating with God.

 

[jiminpa]

Something to consider: I grew up in the Pittsburgh area which has a very definite dialect of English. When I responded to God's call to go into the military I learned pretty quickly that people not from Pittsburgh couldn't understand me, (and my dialect wasn't as strong as some people I knew), and I had to learn to speak differently. Now I live a bit further north than where I grew up and very close to an area where three very distinct dialects are common. I can think of a few convenience stores where you could easily find an Amish, a Yinzer, and a Midwestern-speaking local in the evening of the first Monday of December. So, I picture the three of them reading the same paragraph out loud at the same time and try to imagine me understanding what they are saying well enough to repeat any of it back, and I hear in two of those dialects fluently. Now add in a Bronx New Yorker and a Bostonian. We still haven't gotten southwest of the Allegheny Mountains, and I probably wouldn't be able to repeat any of it back in their words. Now let's grab a native Virginian and an Alabaman. Let's go back to NY and add in someone from Harlem. Now I'm barely picking out single words and we haven't left the Eastern time zone. Now let's get closer to at least crossing the Mississippi, but I won't be fair about this, a Cajun, and three people from different parts of Tennessee. These people all technically speak different dialects of the same language, but if you had them all all on a stage reading the same passage of literature at the same time and at the same pace and volume into microphones, it would be an indiscernible cacophony even if you spoke one of their dialects.

The Bible says in Acts 2 that every nation under the sun was represented there. How many complete languages would that have been? Yet, each person heard in his own dialect. Are we really sure that human languages were spoken in Acts 2?