Number One Flaw in Cessationism

[swordsman1]

Yes, there are, but again, you don't have to believe me, study for yourself. Not even a lot of Pentecostals know there are two types of tongues - individual and corporate. TO God and FROM God. No one is immune to not studying for themselves and digging deeper than the lukewarm.

I have studied it. Paul uses the same word throughout 1 Cor 14 without any distinctions. Nowhere does it say that tongues are messages FROM God.

I'm not surprised your idea is unheard of in Pentecostal circles. It is absent from scripture. Not even Pentecostalism's highest theologian Gordon Fee agrees with it.

Correct.

Seriously? Then I pity you if you read something completely different into everyday sentences with plain meaning. It comes as no surprise. We see a lot of eisegesis in your expositions of scripture.

I've talked to people with the gift of interpretation of tongues, and they hear the translation on top of the tongues, so they can give the interpretation. I do not have the corporate gifts of tongues and interpretation.

But that is not what the foreigners in Acts heard. They didn't hear a voice "on top of the tongues". They heard "them speaking in their own languages"

 

[NBB]

2 Timothy isn't addressed to the church. It's addressed to a 'man of God' otherwise known as a prophet. That's because, in the hands of a PROPHET, Scripture is likely to be divided rightly (by virtue of direct revelation) whereas in the hands of everyone else, it is potentially a recipe for disaster.

Leaving aside Paul's counsel to TIMOTHY (a prophet), here's Paul's counsel for the church:

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual things, especially the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

See above.

Sola Scriptura is nonsense. Friend you need direct revelation. Here's one reason why:

"Love does no harm to its neighbor" (Rom 13:10).

You cannot fulfill that passage without an ongoing stream of direct revelations. Here's why. There's potentially an infinite number of ways to accidentally do harm to your neighbor, whether in small ways such as inadvertently hurting their feelings, or in large ways such as a soldier unaware that his commander is corrupt. I remind you that the soldier who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima killed 200,000 people. When you suggest that God isn't committed to direct revelations today, you've already insulted Him, you've basically insinuated, for example, that He doesn't much care whether those 200,000 people live or die.

And that's not even the biggest issue. The larger issue is evangelism. If God isn't committed to supplying us authoritative revelations directing our evangelism, then he evidently doesn't much care whether untold billions go to hell.

And this is not even to touch on the inherently self-contradictory nature of Sola Scriptura as an epistemology, which I've covered on another thread. For example, do you believe in the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit? If so, you've already contradicted Sola Scriptura.

I don't agree with your material spirit thingy, but totally agree with this, God seems to have been cut off of the gospel for some, and the supernatural is not ok, or something like that.

 

[swordsman1]

Take it or leave it. I always wondered about that part of Mark 16 myself until I talked to someone familiar with Jewish idioms, and found out that it was an idiom regarding divine protection.

So the phrase "picking up deadly snakes" is an idiom for divine protection? Where is your source for that information?

Same for "drinking poison" - is that a Jewish idiom also?

But really, it does have to do with your faith. Idiom or not, I used it once when I was bit by a brown recluse spider and it didn't affect me. But I would stay away from those spiders if I had your faith. Just sayin'..

So all believers today are immune from snake bites providing they can muster up sufficient faith to believe they are immune?

Where in Mark 16 does it say those abilities are only given if the believer has sufficient faith to exercise them? The tongues speakers in Acts didn't have to muster up faith to speak in tongues before they did so. They never even knew such a thing existed.

Oh and I looked up that spider that bit you. It is not even harmful, let alone fatal. "The majority of brown recluse spider bites do not result in any symptoms". So you can hardly claim your faith in protection saved you from harm, let alone death.

Brown recluse spider - Wikipedia

 

[CharismaticLady]

Praying in the Spirit can be praying in tongues. It can also be praying in your native language, as Eph 6:18 shows.

I see Ephesians 6:18 for all the saints to be in tongues; and verse 19 to be spoken as Paul requested. That was Paul's calling, so we already know that is God's will.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

i think the other verse is literal, because 'if they drink a mortal poison' it will do no harm, doesn't seem to be an metaphor.

In Acts Paul survives a snake bite on Malta.

 

[CharismaticLady]

461

I have studied it. Paul uses the same word throughout 1 Cor 14 without any distinctions. Nowhere does it say that tongues are messages FROM God.

I'm not surprised your idea is unheard of in Pentecostal circles. It is absent from scripture. Not even Pentecostalism's highest theologian Gordon Fee agrees with it.

That doesn't bother me a bit. I have Fee's commentary, so I'll check out what he has to say. I have shown my book on tongues to 7 different Pentecostal pastors and it has changed all their minds on tongues. Having grown up as a Cessationist like you, I knew about as much about tongues as you do now. So when the Spirit showed me in Scripture that the gifts had not ceased, and that the Bible was not "the perfect," unlike you, I was open to finding out the truth. It would change your life if you stopped being so stiff-necked and a mocker. I KNOW I don't know everything - you think you already do.

I had a lot of questions after I learned tongues had not ceased. And it took about 6 more years to finally become born again, let alone speak in tongues. They were there as soon as I truly believed, plus many more gifts as well from that day in 1977 forward.

My book took seven years to write, to get all my questions answered. I would ask God questions, and in the early morning as I was just waking, before I had even opened my eyes, the answer would come. Before it became a book, I first wrote a paper on the number one thing unknown about tongues that I discovered, and showed it to a Pentecostal pastor. He took it to England to show to pastors over there at a conference. When it was finally finished (though I am still learning things I could have added), the editor of the publishing company wrote this for the back of the book:

"Although the topic of tongues has been covered in many books, this little book stands out, because it has new things to say and breathes new life into a discussion Christians have been having for decades. Not in “addition” to scripture, but letting all-scripture, rather than denominational opinions form new answers. No matter how much you’ve studied, either pro or con, you’ll be surprised to find original thoughts due to the author’s original way of thinking, uncluttered by denominational biases, but letting the Word of God systematically speak for itself."

And a review:
"I have been a Pentecostal/Charismatic for 50 years. I have read most books on the gift of tongues. I have found this book the best I have ever read. It is well researched, and she uses a good combination of Scriptures to build a very strong foundation for what she has discovered, both through the New Testament and through hers and others experiences in how the gift has been used in Bible times and in the modern day. I was really blessed by reading this book, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know the truth about the gift of tongues and how it is a sign, and especially for those who are seeking for the gift. Buy it! Read it! You will definitely not be disappointed. And this is coming from one who has an M.A. in English Literature, and an M.Div, and who is very discriminating when it comes to receiving literature on the gifts of the Spirit, especially tongues! Also, she has written other books, and if they are as well researched and Scriptural as this one, I intend to buy them as well!"

I don't write books that just repeat what everyone already knows, so I'm not surprised if what you say is true about Fee. But when God shows me something that is truth, but has been buried and now hidden, that's when I start writing again. I've got two in progress right now. So, you see, it doesn't matter what you say about me. I learned from the Author Himself.

And just as with my prayer life, I've learned patience to wait on Him, and not pray or write my own words. His words are why 100% of my prayers are answered. It's nothing special about me, just that I learned to wait and stand still.

 

[CharismaticLady]

So the phrase "picking up deadly snakes" is an idiom for divine protection? Where is your source for that information?

Same for "drinking poison" - is that a Jewish idiom also?




So all believers today are immune from snake bites providing they can muster up sufficient faith to believe they are immune?

Where in Mark 16 does it say those abilities are only given if the believer has sufficient faith to exercise them? The tongues speakers in Acts didn't have to muster up faith to speak in tongues before they did so. They never even knew such a thing existed.

Oh and I looked up that spider that bit you. It is not even harmful, let alone fatal. "The majority of brown recluse spider bites do not result in any symptoms". So you can hardly claim your faith in protection saved you from harm, let alone death.

Brown recluse spider - Wikipedia

The brown recluse venom is extremely poisonous, even more potent than that of a rattlesnake. Yet recluse venom causes less disease than a rattlesnake bite because of the small quantities injected into its victims.

Deaths from brown recluse spiders have been reported only in children younger than seven years.

This venom is a collection of enzymes. One of the specific enzymes, once released into the victim's skin, causes destruction of local cell membranes, which disrupts the integrity of tissues leading to local breakdown of skin, fat, and blood vessels. This process leads to eventual tissue death (necrosis) in areas immediately surrounding the bite site.

 

[CharismaticLady]

In Acts Paul survives a snake bite on Malta.

Yes, divine protection can come in many forms.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Not even Pentecostalism's highest theologian Gordon Fee agrees with it.

I pulled out my copy of Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians and I can see why he missed it. He studied it in sections. The first section was verses 1-5. Then next he did 6-13 in the second section. It is not surprising that he blamed Paul for not being clear. He got all confused as to why Paul mentioned revelation and teaching in his list in verse 6, not even realizing they were what the interpretations would be from verse 5. The key is that the context of verse 6 is verse 5, which he separated. He has not looked at them in the same study! No wonder he got admittedly confused. It wasn't Paul's fault at all. He was perfectly clear.

Then he tried adding the word 'sign' to prophecy that was not in the scripture to make it clearer to his own understanding, when in fact there was a reason that only tongues was the sign and to the unbeliever. At least, he got that the sign of tongues to the unbeliever was a negative sign, and not a positive sign as those who believe Acts 2 tongues was a positive sign to them, when, in fact, it was negative toward the mockers. You had it right that it was both a positive sign to those who believe, and negative to those who didn't believe. But Fee didn't understand why prophecy wasn't also a 'sign.' If he knew the type of sign it was, and the full impact of the sign, then he wouldn't have made that mistake.

At least Fee didn't think it was a sign to the Jews as I've heard on the forums so many times, and wind up doing an eye roll.

1 Corinthians 14 is clear as day when you see that Paul was describing personal tongues for prayer and praise TO God, and corporate tongues with interpretation FROM God, that are not given but to a few; and commanding them to stop using their private prayer language in the Church and disrupting the service with them all speaking their prayer language out loud. It was for no once benefit. It was out of order, and if they all were speaking their prayer language all at once when no interpretation was forth-coming, the unintelligible sound would be such a cacophony, it would not be good for visitors. They would probably run out of the meeting and never come back. Prophecy is better in church, and if the few that had the corporate tongues, then limit them to only 2 to 3 and one interpret, because that gift also is only given to a few. But if that known person with that office of interpreter was not present, for the speakers to be silent. And at least the message would be revelation, prophecy, teaching or knowledge and would be beneficial to all. And where do those interpretations come from? FROM God, and not TO God as verse 2 says of our prayer and praise language. Thus, there are two with different directions. The gifts of Mark 16 are given to all believers whether they believe in them and have the faith to actually speak it or not; and 1 Cor. 12 is given to only a few with those offices for the profit of all. Those who don't believe - "my people perish for lack of knowledge." They are not living the abundant life.

This is what I told you. Not even Pentecostals know this stuff.

Thanks for the good laugh. Good night.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I would hardly believe wiki over scriptural context/ the Greek wording used. Many church beliefs compromise scripture and it would be no surprise such compromise can be found on wiki.

Paul using the words "tongues of angels", makes it grammatically correct.

The context in the scripture we are discussing dictates that it is foreign language of any number of nations on earth.

I already quoted the verses to state that I do not agree with that. 1 Corinthians 14.

It is interesting that people who claim to have gifts, never really go out like the disciples did and prove their gifts. Mark 16:20 states that they went out into the world and used their signs and wonders to "confirm the word".

Mar 16:15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation." ESV
What is meant by the word? And what is the world? All the world, not just the mediterranean. If I go to China where they have not yet heard the word, and my style of preaching, my word based on the Gospel must be proven with signs and wonders like healings and secret thoughts revealed. CFAN has videos of crusades in Africa. Missions and local pastors use signs to help us believe. And some won't believe. The ancient Pharisees had reasons for why they would not believe. It took years to gain His own disciples understanding "at last". But in their droves with excellent preaching by Bonnke and Kolenda, Africans turned from Islam and paganism to Christ and stay on. Long ago there was John G Lake. Of course Billy Graham. There are so many. Hundreds of millions of Pentecostals.

Questions:
Is the bible complete?

Does the bible need to be confirmed anymore?

The Bible does not need confirmation, to say, a believer like Gordon Fee, or any who grew up in the Bible tradition, it is rather the Word preached live. Rather than the gifts confirming the OT, the OT confirmed the NT as it was unravelling. Paul and Peter... had to prove their sayings by the OT. And that all the time. Such as with the noble Bereans.

Anyway, back to the interesting thing about people who claim they have gifts. Gifts were to be used openly. People who claim this now days do not do this. They go to congregations that agree with their beliefs already. They never go out to a street corner and prove it.

Some do go to the streets, street healers, such as in movies like Holy Ghost and Finger of God... one of my local churches. CFAN with an audience of up to 9 million live. Non believers come to church and they hear gifts like I did. The format of church is more advanced than Paul on street corners, and Paul went into synagogues too. It is a lack of boldness and spiritual giftedness that holds people back.

Question:
If gift of tongues is still accessible, then all the other gifts are.
If that is the case, then do you believe in the Mormon belief system? Would you hold to their beliefs and follow them and reject your current beliefs?

If not, why?

Note: Joseph Smith claimed divine prophecies and claimed to have spoken with an angel.

Because a whole book does not just fall from the sky like the Book of Mormon. It takes OT proofs, gifts, and testimonies of repentances and holiness.

"Others" claimed they were drunk because they were "mocking" them. Your still faced with the problem that all the different national peoples there heard their language. It was literal foreign tongue, like German for example. Not some crazy muttering they do now days.

Some muttering as you call it nowadays is a foreign language. As I wrote earlier. There was some reason to mock.

Secondly, Paul didn't have a church. It is Christs church. Paul is merely a mouth piece to help advance the kingdom/church of Christ. (Matthew 16:18-19- Christs church/kingdom established in Acts 2)

By Paul's church I meant, that his labour formed it. All the churches of that time were Christ's. So they followed Paul's pattern of maturity and it was quite different than compared with Acts 2 and the acts of the apostles all speaking at once and the rushing wind, the tongues of fire... At Corinth as in 1 Corinthians 14, the tongues were not human languages. He directs them to edify each other rather than themselves with tongues, unless they interpret, because it was an open meeting. Not like in Acts 2 mostly Jews. It was open to any he would come. Praying in tongues alone at home is different.

Peace, faith, courage, love, does not come from tongues. This is utterly false. This premise doesn't even hold true in the secular either. Tongues if a spiritual gift given by the Holy Spirit to some, to confirm the word, of which we do not need anymore since the bibles completion.

Once again the OT confirmed the word and so long as anyone preaches a word, if it is correct, it helps if it is confirmed with gifts, even healings. There are healings today. Back in my Christian roots, there was the account of a boy healed from jaw cancer. And I saw a crippled boy get up and jog.

Not for each word but for each hearer, there is help for them, if there are gifts accompanying.

Tongues is said to edify the one who prays. So makes them more just and Godly. The Spirit gives the words, the heart prays, God works in us.

We lost from the Bible many accounts of proving gifts and OT debates from Paul... to assure us of the NT correctness... WE need the proofs, not the words in the NT. They don't need proofs, although a Messianic Jew may diagree.

Yes, the writers had the Holy Spirit directing the scriptures writing. The bible IS composed of historical evidence, signs and wonders, witnesses, and proof of God and Jesus, and that Jesus was the Christ. The word was indeed confirmed using gifts. It literally states such:
Mark 16:20
John 20:30-31

Quite literally.



I agree.



Yes, we can apply the same principle.

No, the bible literally says the gifts will cease. It is not my opinion. I placed scripture down.

No, the Bible says the gifts will cease when Christ returns. Christ described his return as being like lightning, lighting up east and west. Lightning is a thing. It reveals. Then when Christ returns, no more need for gifts of knowledge, perfect knowledge will be abundant.

We can say gifts were for the NT because it literally states it. I gave the verses above earlier.

If Jews and other were not going to believe using signs and wonders, why do you think it would be beneficial today?

There are accounts of Jesus himself doing signs and they still did not believe.

The Pharisees would not repent with John and resisted signs but others believed.

I think Jesus said:
blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (Jn 20:29)



We have the bible. It is "that which is perfect". About 40 authors in thousands of years and it is quite accurate and no discrepancies 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

This scripture does not say that the Bible is somehow complete and perfect and the Bible says we need the Spirit, the anointing and gifts, living water, new birth... The Word and the Spirit, gives growth. Sola Scriptura is limited. It is the reader who can become complete. As it was with Timothy from the quote.

John wrote this to people who were Christians for some time already. They had been taught and were knowledgeable from all that was taught to them.

You forgot to include:
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also

That puts the context more clearly for you. If you had been studying in botany and got your degree, you to would have the knowledge needed. 1 John was written in about 85-90 AD. Over 50 years after Christs death on the cross. The people John is writing to, must be mature Christians. However he does contain messages for the younger ones too in this chapter 2.

So mature Complete Christians have the anointing. And they maintain Trinitarianism.

The anointing has the same power that He had with Abraham and Moses...

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Looking at Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14, and Gordon Fee, we see the limitations of Sola Scriptura which Luther invented in Germany. It is like a boat, it can take one so far, but then the dock and walking. And as many as are led by the Spirit of God these are the sons of God.

We need to gain the anointing to teach us the scriptures as they were when they came from the Spirit in the authors, the apostles... It then seems people have extra-biblical revelation. They draw on the Bible to teach, with scripture explaining scripture, but they have something more and people with Sola Scriptura get it wrong. And proving angelic tongues one way or the other is moot.

The proof is Biblical, in that a person can pray and speak over you in tongues, then interpret. And in so reveal your secret thoughts and inhibitions... but give you courage and hope, and direction, for peace, and justification. They may look at you with the love of God the fruit of the Spirit. Like it says in ch 14 about prophecy edifying and making one acknowledge God is really in you, who interprets. Biblical proof, but not Sola Scriptura.

 

[swordsman1]

The brown recluse venom is extremely poisonous, even more potent than that of a rattlesnake. Yet recluse venom causes less disease than a rattlesnake bite because of the small quantities injected into its victims.

Yes, the quantities of venom are so small that "the majority of brown recluse spider bites do not result in any symptoms" - Brown recluse spider - Wikipedia

 

[swordsman1]

I pulled out my copy of Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians and I can see why he missed it. He studied it in sections. The first section was verses 1-5. Then next he did 6-13 in the second section. It is not surprising that he blamed Paul for not being clear. He got all confused as to why Paul mentioned revelation and teaching in his list in verse 6, not even realizing they were what the interpretations would be from verse 5. The key is that the context of verse 6 is verse 5, which he separated. He has not looked at them in the same study! No wonder he got admittedly confused. It wasn't Paul's fault at all. He was perfectly clear.

Then he tried adding the word 'sign' to prophecy that was not in the scripture to make it clearer to his own understanding, when in fact there was a reason that only tongues was the sign and to the unbeliever. At least, he got that the sign of tongues to the unbeliever was a negative sign, and not a positive sign as those who believe Acts 2 tongues was a positive sign to them, when, in fact, it was negative toward the mockers. You had it right that it was both a positive sign to those who believe, and negative to those who didn't believe. But Fee didn't understand why prophecy wasn't also a 'sign.' If he knew the type of sign it was, and the full impact of the sign, then he wouldn't have made that mistake.

At least Fee didn't think it was a sign to the Jews as I've heard on the forums so many times, and wind up doing an eye roll.

If Fee got it so wrong, maybe Pentecostalism should have you as it's chief theologian instead. But seeing Fee is a top seminary professor with dozens of peer-reviewed books to his credit (including top-selling books on hermeneutics which you would be well advised to read), and you are just an amateur using the fallacy of eisegesis to make your arguments, I won't be holding my breath.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826/
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Exegesis-Handbook-Students/dp/0664223168/

1 Corinthians 14 is clear as day when you see that Paul was describing personal tongues for prayer and praise TO God, and corporate tongues with interpretation FROM God, that are not given but to a few; and commanding them to stop using their private prayer language in the Church and disrupting the service with them all speaking their prayer language out loud. It was for no once benefit. It was out of order, and if they all were speaking their prayer language all at once when no interpretation was forth-coming, the unintelligible sound would be such a cacophony, it would not be good for visitors. They would probably run out of the meeting and never come back. Prophecy is better in church, and if the few that had the corporate tongues, then limit them to only 2 to 3 and one interpret, because that gift also is only given to a few. But if that known person with that office of interpreter was not present, for the speakers to be silent. And at least the message would be revelation, prophecy, teaching or knowledge and would be beneficial to all. And where do those interpretations come from? FROM God, and not TO God as verse 2 says of our prayer and praise language. Thus, there are two with different directions. The gifts of Mark 16 are given to all believers whether they believe in them and have the faith to actually speak it or not; and 1 Cor. 12 is given to only a few with those offices for the profit of all. Those who don't believe - "my people perish for lack of knowledge." They are not living the abundant life.

As Gordon Fee points out, there is nowhere in 1 Corinthians that says tongues were a message FROM God.

They were certainly prayer or praise TO God, but not as a "private prayer language". Tongues is nowhere described as that. Speaking in tongues in private would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which are only to be used to benefit others (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10).

 

[NBB]

If Fee got it so wrong, maybe Pentecostalism should have you as it's chief theologian instead. But seeing Fee is a top seminary professor with dozens of peer-reviewed books to his credit (including top-selling books on hermeneutics which you would be well advised to read), and you are just an amateur using the fallacy of eisegesis to make your arguments, I won't be holding my breath.

https://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310517826/
https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Exegesis-Handbook-Students/dp/0664223168/




As Gordon Fee points out, there is nowhere in 1 Corinthians that says tongues were a message FROM God.

They were certainly prayer or praise TO God, but not as a "private prayer language". Tongues is nowhere described as that. Speaking in tongues in private would be an abuse of a spiritual gift which are only to be used to benefit others (1 Cor 12:7, 1 Peter 4:10).

Those who have the gift of speaking in a different language are not speaking to people. They are speaking to God. No one understands them—they are speaking secret things through the Spirit. 3 But those who prophesy are speaking to people. They help people grow stronger in faith, and they give encouragement and comfort. 4 Those who speak in a different language are helping only themselves. But those who prophesy are helping the whole church.

'They build up themselves' this is obvious you can use tongues when they are given by God to 'build yourself' so its not a misuse of a gift, also he says they are not speaking to people, they are speaking to God, no one understands them, they are speaking secrets things, unless someone interprets. So yes you can use tongues in private. In other parts of the bible it says that 'speak to themselves' if there is no one to interpret the tongues in church, so yes you can speak in tongues without an interpreter, and i think in the bible there were cases were they spoke in tongues and there was no interpreter too.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Those who have the gift of speaking in a different language are not speaking to people. They are speaking to God. No one understands them—they are speaking secret things through the Spirit. 3 But those who prophesy are speaking to people. They help people grow stronger in faith, and they give encouragement and comfort. 4 Those who speak in a different language are helping only themselves. But those who prophesy are helping the whole church.

'They build up themselves' this is obvious you can use tongues when they are given by God to 'build yourself' so its not a misuse of a gift, also he says they are not speaking to people, they are speaking to God, no one understands them, they are speaking secrets things, unless someone interprets. So yes you can use tongues in private. In other parts of the bible it says that 'speak to themselves' if there is no one to interpret the tongues in church, so yes you can speak in tongues without an interpreter, and i think in the bible there were cases were they spoke in tongues and there was no interpreter too.

I agree regarding our prayer language; and even about the gift of diverse kinds of tongues requiring interpretation in Church.

And yes, there were cases in the Bible that when someone received the Spirit and spoke in tongues it shows if they just received their prayer language, or if they were blessed with the higher gift of tongues for the profit of all. You can tell by whether they spoke in tongues and praised God - prayer language TO God; or is they spoke in tongues and prophesied - higher gift for the church to receive messages FROM God.

 

[NBB]

I agree regarding our prayer language; and even about the gift of diverse kinds of tongues requiring interpretation in Church.

And yes, there were cases in the Bible that when someone received the Spirit and spoke in tongues it shows if they just received their prayer language, or if they were blessed with the higher gift of tongues for the profit of all. You can tell by whether they spoke in tongues and praised God - prayer language TO God; or is they spoke in tongues and prophesied - higher gift for the church to receive messages FROM God.

I don't know i think its just the same, you speak in an unkown tongue, that is was is supposed to be, i don't see a difference between a prayer language or something else, you just speak in tongues, someone can interpret or not.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don't know i think its just the same, you speak in an unkown tongue, that is was is supposed to be, i don't see a difference between a prayer language or something else, you just speak in tongues, someone can interpret or not.

It is not common knowledge that there are two different types of tongues. The difference is the direction.

Mark 16 - TO GOD, no interpretation - personal prayer
1 Cor. 12 - FROM GOD, must be interpreted - messages for profit of all.

 

[NBB]

It is not common knowledge that there are two different types of tongues. The difference is the direction.

Mark 16 - TO GOD, no interpretation - personal prayer
1 Cor. 12 - FROM GOD, must be interpreted - messages for profit of all.

I don't beileve that way, i think tongues is a language God gives you, and as any language it can be interpreted, with knowledge, like knowing the language, or by an God given ability to interpret, i don't see why there should be a difference. Is a language God gives, it should have meaning. Can be interpreted or not.

Or i don't really know, because i don't speak i tongues.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don't beileve that way, i think tongues is a language God gives you, and as any language it can be interpreted, with knowledge, like knowing the language, or by an God given ability to interpret, i don't see why there should be a difference. Is a language God gives, it should have meaning. Can be interpreted or not.

Or i don't really know, because i don't speak i tongues.

Even most Pentecostals believe speaking in tongues, is speaking in tongues. Period. And so in the world. This is why there is so much confusion over the rules. "All tongues must be interpreted." "Praying in tongues by yourself is a misuse of the gift." "Not all Christians receives tongues." Those are all false.

 

[NBB]

Even most Pentecostals believe speaking in tongues, is speaking in tongues. Period. And so in the world. This is why there is so much confusion over the rules. "All tongues must be interpreted." "Praying in tongues by yourself is a misuse of the gift." "Not everyone receives tongues." Those are all false.

I believe you can speak in tongues all you want, because this 'builds you up' and are helpful, and you can 'communicate with God' etc etc, so when Paul said that he speaks tongues more than everyone i think he spoke alone too, and not that he always had an interpreter so.