PENTECOSTALISM VS INTELLECTUAL CHRISTIANITY

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul is explaining not that there is a distinction to be made in the "tongue" or "gift" but in its application or use.

Try this and see if it makes sense:

"does not speak to men but to God, for (BECAUSE ) no one understands him"

Paul was explaining why speaking in tongues was useless unless there was someone there to understand what was being said. It had NO BENEFIT. You're just "speaking to God." And if the gift is for the unbeliever, do you think Paul therefore concluded that speaking in tongues to God was beneficial because God needed to be convinced of something? Odd, when put in context with what else he said don't you think? That absurdity, that one would use a gift of God to speak only to God, is what Paul is trying to convey here.



Yes, because the practice is for unbelievers. So, for the unbeliever to get a benefit, he has to understand what is being said. Thus the need for an interpreter at the very least. Not only were they speaking in languages that nobody could understand, they were talking over others who were speaking at the same time. It was chaos. It needed to be ordered and in a way that people could understand. The way that they were worshiping provided no "edification" or benefit to the church.



What do you think I am not understanding?



So...Paul says, it is useless if no one understands he who speaks in tongues. At the same time, he is careful to make them understand that the gift is sacred and that its purpose is to reveal mystery. If it is only being spoken to the person who provided the revelation, it is being wasted.



So, even when doing this alone, there is no benefit since I myself have gained no understanding.



So, I will pray with the spirit but in my own language so that I get understanding. I will sing with the spirit in my own language and I will also sing with the understanding (so that others in the church are edified). Understanding I would not have had were I to pray or sing in another language that none of us understands.



Therefore if you're all together speaking in tongues and in chaos, and somebody comes in who doesn't speak the languages you're speaking, and sees you doing this in chaos, will they not say you are out of your mind?



I think I understand. What am I missing do you think?



Yet he also says that no benefit is obtained when you do it alone by yourself. The purpose of speaking in tongues was for the unbeliever not the believer.




I would say this is a pretty good argument against the practice of speaking in tongues unless it has a benefit to the listener, even if that listener is yourself. You're not hearing anything that brings new understanding.



A person who edifies himself is not a benefit to the congregation. That's the point of this treatise. Don't do things which are only intended to make you feel special. Your purpose in the church is to edify the church, not yourself.


Right. Don't be afraid to use this gift if it edifies the church and brings believers to repentance, the purpose of the gift. It's an amazing gift when it is used in the proper way.



Can you quote a single place where I've indicated I "hate" the gift of tongues?


The only thing I hate is teaching that is contradictory to scripture.

I have a question. You said that if someone speaks in tongues, "only God understands him". The way you have written it suggests that God understanding the tongue doesn't mean much at all. I wonder what sort of an opinion you have of God?

I fully agree that speaking in tongues out loud in church meetings without interpretation is contrary to Paul's inspired teaching, and so it is inadvisable, although Paul does say that the person who does speak in tongues that way is "giving thanks well". But the problem is that although the tongues-speaker is giving good thanks to the Lord and building himself up, he is being of no use to anyone else. This is why Paul says that if a person wants to be moved of the Spirit in a way that builds up everyone else then he should prophesy.

This is not to say that tongues in general is inferior to prophecy, but that it is out of place compared to prophecy in a public church meeting, unless the tongue is followed by the interpretation so that everyone understands the interpretation and is thereby edified.

But in personal and private prayer, tongues is superior to prophecy because prophecy is not prayer and therefore is out of place in that environment.

So Paul is saying that in church meetings, covet to prophesy and don't forbid speaking in tongues, but if there is no interpreter, let the person speak to himself and to God. I have done that quietly during a time of ministry for those who went forward in a church meeting for prayer, and a NZ Maori lady sitting beside me heard what I was saying in tongues and told me that God spoke words of encouragement to her through me in the Maori language, and I had never learned Maori! I was told of a prayer meeting in which my friend was praying in tongues along with the others,and a visitor from Ghana got really excited said that my friend spoke praises to God in his own village dialect! But these tongues were not loud tongues without interpretation in those meetings. Church family prayer meetings are not public, so Paul's instruction about not speaking out in tongues does not apply. And my speaking in tongues in the public meeting was basically to myself and God, but enough for that Maori lady to hear her own first language.

These are not haphazard babblings by any stretch of the imagination, but down-to-earth speaking an unlearned language by faith, believing that God is hearing and understanding that langage.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I didn't say that you do, Oscarr.

But to talk as if no one else ever does so is mystifying. Why do Pentecostals feel that in order to defend or justify their kind of Christianity, they must deny that there are any abuses or even mistakes on the part of even a single other Pentecostal Christian!? That there are no cases of sounds that are not genuine, not what the Bible was describing? Frankly, it doesn't seem to make sense.


You have no way of knowing if that is true, you know. Not unless you are saying that whatever is uttered with sincerity doesn't really matter because God knows the heart of each of us.

See my other post about the others who heard my friend speaking in Ghanaian and Maori while praying in tongues. So, if I pray in tongues and God causes a person to understand what I am saying, then that confirms to me that when I pray in tongues at any time, God understand it, while He doesn't cause it to be understood by anyone else every time.

Over the last 50 years I have been praying in tongues, I have had many confirmations that I am really praying in the Spirit according to the Scriptures and that they are genuine languages that God understands and acts upon. I have had many amazing events and effective ministry opportunities happen as the result of praying in tongues.

Experience (not experiences!) wins over an argument every time!

 

[Al Touthentop]

The text does say that there were 120 in the room waiting on God as Jesus instructed them.


The majority of sound Bible commentators agree that there were 120 in the room when the Holy Spirit came and filled them.

This is not relevant to what the text says.

To assert 120 is to believe that the Holy Spirit practices poor grammar.

And they proposed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, O Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two You have chosen 25 to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.” 26 And they cast their lots, and the lot fell on Matthias. And he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Now, this is the last verse before the start of chapter 2. In the original text, there were no spaces between the letters, not chapter markers, no verse numbers, there wasn't even punctuation marks.

The very next verse is this:

2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

They were - ησαν - is a verb and its nearest antecedent is the noun "apostles" adjectivally modified by " And he was numbered with the eleven" in the previous sentence. It is grammatically incorrect to look further previous in the text to connect it with another noun. If you do that, then where do you stop? How about the two men in white clothing in verse 3?

"Oh, that's much to far," you might respond. But, if you go even one noun beyond "apostles" you are already ceding that you are willing to be arbitrary in your reading.

So, they were all (Mathias and the eleven) in one place. And that place was not the upper room which not only could not accommodate 120 people, it couldn't hold the thousands who rushed to see the noise they heard. The upper room was a small upper apartment that the text never says contained 120. It says that the eleven stayed there, named individually, plus the women. It isn't until after that naming and numbering that we read of the 120 choosing a new apostle. And that passage does not say that they were in the upper room when it happened. Likely they were in the temple. We can safely surmise this because the upper room wouldn't accommodate such a large group and, Luke tells us this at the end of his gospel account:

"And they worshiped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising and blessing God. Amen.

So, then we read on and we see that the scriptures enforce our reading of "they were" and applying it to the 12 apostles.

Verse 7:Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?

Mary, Martha and Lazarus were from Bethany, not Galilee.

Verse 14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them..

Verse 37: Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles,

Now, you could argue..."hey, that doesn't say that there weren't others, just that these thousands of people only asked their question of the 12." But, it would be kind of weird. The entire body of text from 1:26 to 2:37 only refers to the apostles and it is obviously to make it clear that it was the apostles alone who were doing this.

Yet, as I pointed out before, one would have to be totally disingenuous or a terribly poor bible student not to notice that there was an entire church at Corinth full of congregants who were not apostles and yet spoke in tongues. And we read some chapters later in this very book of Acts that Cornelius and his family spoke in tongues and that the disciple Philip had three daughters who prophesied. So obviously, the apostles were not the only one with gifts. Stephen was given gifts just a couple of chapters later by the laying on of the apostles hands.

Please don't use the erroneous teaching of one person to influence how carefully you read the text. If somebody is wrong about one thing, it doesn't make them wrong about everything.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I remember the previous several times the above was posted or something close to it. I've never before met someone who holds two Master's Degrees...and refers to them as "Mastorates." Must be a particularly Australian/New Zealander thing.

Yes. A familiar way of describing it here in NZ, and a person with a PhD, as having a "doctorate".

It is usual for a person who holds a master's degree to go on and do a PhD. But my first one was in English Literature, and I wasn't interested enough in it to spend 5 years doing the "doctorate". I did my second mastorate in my mid 60s, and my chosen on-line Bible college (Nations University) does not offer a D.Th or a D.D. so I did the M.Div instead. It was a good three years journey and Nations University has very high standards. It was a lot harder to do it through them, than doing my first M.A. through my attendance at the University of Waikato in Hamilton NZ!

I could have enjoyed having a D.D., but when I asked the Lord about it, He seemed to let me know that it would be no use to me in the type of service I was doing for Him. He seemed to let me know that the M.Div was enough.

I could have spent $2,500 doing a D.D. through Northwestern, but our household budget wouldn't stretch to it, and my wife would probably have divorced me!!!

 

[Al Touthentop]

I have a question. You said that if someone speaks in tongues, "only God understands him". The way you have written it suggests that God understanding the tongue doesn't mean much at all. I wonder what sort of an opinion you have of God?

Paul wrote it. What sort of opinion do you think he had of God? Those are his words.

But the problem is that although the tongues-speaker is giving good thanks to the Lord and building himself up, he is being of no use to anyone else. This is why Paul says that if a person wants to be moved of the Spirit in a way that builds up everyone else then he should prophesy.

Agree totally. But he even says don't forbid tongues as long as its going to edify the church.

This is not to say that tongues in general is inferior to prophecy, but that it is out of place compared to prophecy in a public church meeting, unless the tongue is followed by the interpretation so that everyone understands the interpretation and is thereby edified.

Yup.

But in personal and private prayer, tongues is superior to prophecy because prophecy is not prayer and therefore is out of place in that environment.

Here's where I don't follow. Paul said that if you're doing this in private, then not only are you only edifying yourself, your practice is "fruitless." I think he was speaking against self-edification because it doesn't provide the benefit one believes it does. And this attempt at self-edification in private is just as fruitless when performed in public.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

This is not relevant to what the text says.

To assert 120 is to believe that the Holy Spirit practices poor grammar.
Now, this is the last verse before the start of chapter 2. In the original text, there were no spaces between the letters, not chapter markers, no verse numbers, there wasn't even punctuation marks.
The very next verse is this:
They were - ησαν - is a verb and its nearest antecedent is the noun "apostles" adjectivally modified by " And he was numbered with the eleven" in the previous sentence. It is grammatically incorrect to look further previous in the text to connect it with another noun. If you do that, then where do you stop? How about the two men in white clothing in verse 3?
"Oh, that's much to far," you might respond. But, if you go even one noun beyond "apostles" you are already ceding that you are willing to be arbitrary in your reading.
So, they were all (Mathias and the eleven) in one place. And that place was not the upper room which not only could not accommodate 120 people, it couldn't hold the thousands who rushed to see the noise they heard. The upper room was a small upper apartment that the text never says contained 120. It says that the eleven stayed there, named individually, plus the women. It isn't until after that naming and numbering that we read of the 120 choosing a new apostle. And that passage does not say that they were in the upper room when it happened. Likely they were in the temple. We can safely surmise this because the upper room wouldn't accommodate such a large group and, Luke tells us this at the end of his gospel account:



So, then we read on and we see that the scriptures enforce our reading of "they were" and applying it to the 12 apostles.

Verse 7:Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans?

Mary Magdalene, Martha and Lazarus were from Bethany, not Galilee.

Verse 14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them..

Verse 37: Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles,

Now, you could argue..."hey, that doesn't say that there weren't others, just that these thousands of people only asked their question of the 12." But, it would be kind of weird. The entire body of text from 1:26 to 2:37 only refers to the apostles and it is obviously to make it clear that it was the apostles alone who were doing this.

Yet, as I pointed out before, one would have to be totally disingenuous or a terribly poor bible student not to notice that there was an entire church at Corinth full of congregants who were not apostles and yet spoke in tongues. And we read some chapters later in this very book of Acts that Cornelius and his family spoke in tongues and that the disciple Philip had three daughters who prophesied. So obviously, the apostles were not the only one with gifts. Stephen was given gifts just a couple of chapters later by the laying on of the apostles hands.

Please don't use the erroneous teaching of one person to influence how carefully you read the text. If somebody is wrong about one thing, it doesn't make them wrong about everything.

Let's look at the whole passage. Remember that the division of verses did not exist in the original manuscripts.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said, “Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us and was allotted his share in this ministry.” (Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong[d] he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) “For it is written in the Book of Psalms,
“‘May his camp become desolate,
and let there be no one to dwell in it’;
and
“‘Let another take his office.’
So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.” And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This is how the original was written. It clearly indicates that for this whole period, there were 120 people present. There is no mention of the group being decreased at any time. Anyone reading the passage as I have shown it, would find it strange the the 120 had suddenly became just 12, as if 108 people who were there suddenly disappeared into thin air.

The problem is that certain teaching is drummed into people often from childhood (if they were brought up in Christian homes), and it is so ingrained in them that they are unable to accept any other teaching, even reading their teaching into the text of the Bible, even if the literal comprehension of the text says something different.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Paul wrote it. What sort of opinion do you think he had of God? Those are his words.



Agree totally. But he even says don't forbid tongues as long as its going to edify the church.



Yup.



Here's where I don't follow. Paul said that if you're doing this in private, then not only are you only edifying yourself, your practice is "fruitless." I think he was speaking against self-edification because it doesn't provide the benefit one believes it does. And this attempt at self-edification in private is just as fruitless when performed in public.

But you said that when a person is speaking in tongues, "he is only speaking to God", as if speaking to God is really nothing. Do you really think that speaking to God whether in tongues or English is basically pointless? I'm sure you don't mean that! Neither did Paul!

Paul said that he prays with his spirit (tongues) and with the understanding (probably Greek). So, he views praying with his spirit and with his understanding are of equal value to him. Both ways he is praying to God, and he is treating his prayer as part of the armour of God (Ephesian 6, which talks about praying in the Spirit). Jude says that by praying in the Spirit (tongues) he is building himself up in his holy faith!

So, praying to God is not praying into thin air, as you are implying. Although Paul did say that someone praying out loud in tongues in a church meeting in front of the others might as well be praying into the air in terms of others being able to understand him. But if the person is speaking to himself and to God either in the meeting or in his private prayer time, he is certainly not praying into thin air!

I just cannot believe that you are taking the attitude that praying to God is basically worthless, and that praying mysteries in the Spirit is nothing at all just because he is "just speaking to God" and not to the others present. Paul would disagree with you because he clearly says that the person who is speaking in tongues, even in the church meeting is "giving thanks well". Would he say that if he thought that the speaking in tongues there was basically useless?

Like I have said many times before on a tongues thread: You can't just cherry pick random verses out of a chapter and ignore the rest to try and prove that you are right in what you are saying. It just doesn't work that way. You have to carefully read every word of the chapter and see what Paul is really saying, not what you want to believe that Paul might be saying.

Oh, accurate exegesis of Scripture, thou art a jewel!!! Too bad that many have not discovered it!

 

[Al Touthentop]

Let's look at the whole passage.

Remember that the division of verses did not exist in the original manuscripts.

If you'll go back to my response, you'll see that I wrote that and in fact it is the reason why the antecedent of a particular verb must be carefully determined.

But let's go a bit higher in the text so you can see how perfectly Luke's grammar lines up.

Now when He had spoken these things, while they (the eleven) watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they (the eleven) looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who (the two) also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”
Then they (the eleven) returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away. And when they (the eleven) had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they (the eleven) were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. (Luke names all eleven)

So, the sentence or thought ends.

All these (the eleven) with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.

And here Luke re-iterates that they were continuously worshiping but the location of their worship is not specified as the upper room. The upper room was where the apostles returned. The sentence, "together with the women" is not even saying that the women were staying in the upper room. The inclusion of the women is in the activity "devoting themselves to prayer" not "staying."

In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said,

Notice that it does not say that this event is in the upper room. It says that the event happened "in those days." In what days? The days when the apostles returned to the city. But remember that Luke said at the end of his gospel that when they returned to Jerusalem, they were "continuously in the temple." Their fear of the Jews was no longer an issue. Jesus' resurrection removed their fear of the Jews. The upper room could not accommodate 120 people and there is never anywhere in the text that it says there were 120 in the room even if it were capable of holding that many. The room was many blocks away from the temple and could not contain 120, much more, thousands. And, if the 120 were inside the upper room, the apostles and the 120 would have had to come out of it to address the thousands who rushed to them upon hearing the noises they heard. If you remember it had a single door and this was the room where Jesus appeared in the midst of the eleven even though the door was locked.

......

And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles. When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were (Matthias and the eleven apostles) all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all (the twelve apostles) filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.

This is how the original was written. It clearly indicates that for this whole period, there were 120 people present.

It can only 'clearly' indicate this if you ignore basic rules of grammatical construction.

There is no mention of the group being decreased at any time. Anyone reading the passage as I have shown it, would find it strange the the 120 had suddenly became just 12, as if 108 people who were there suddenly disappeared into thin air.

The passage never mentions either reduction or increase. The verbs and their nouns are totally consistent, describing the number of people performing whatever action described. There were 120 people in attendance when the replacement apostle was selected. That selection likely occurred in the temple, not the upper room. At no time does the text say that 120 people were in the upper room.

The problem is that certain teaching is drummed into people often from childhood (if they were brought up in Christian homes), and it is so ingrained in them that they are unable to accept any other teaching, even reading their teaching into the text of the Bible, even if the literal comprehension of the text says something different.

Well, I totally agree with you there. That can be a problem. An even bigger problem is when one goes to the text and totally ignores the rules of grammar as if God, the being who invented language, is a poor grammarian. Poor reading leads to poor understanding. This entire passage says nothing about a doctrine. It doesn't limit who received spiritual gifts except for this one day and maybe not even that. Nothing is said about the 120 at all on this particular day. As Acts will later testify and the epistles also, non-apostles received spiritual gifts.[/QUOTE]

 

[Al Touthentop]

But you said that when a person is speaking in tongues, "he is only speaking to God", as if speaking to God is really nothing.

PAUL SAID THAT!

I didn't say it. What I believe is that he is pointing out the absurdity of speaking in tongues "only to God", who provided that person the gift of the words being spoken. Does God want to talk to himself by directing somebody to speak in a language they don't understand, the words being of no benefit even to themselves? How bizarre is that?

When Paul says they are only speaking to God, he's pointing out that this message from God is returning to himself and not achieving the benefit intended. If it were performed as intended, it might cause a foreign speaking non-believer to recognize that these words could only be coming from God. If God ever eye-rolled, this would be the perfect time to do it. But personally, I think he's too loving a God to be that mean. Thus he sent Paul to gently teach them the reason behind the supernatural gift of speaking other languages.

 

[Al Touthentop]

So, praying to God is not praying into thin air, as you are implying.

Lots of straw men arguments in your response. This one is a doozy. Paul told the Corinthians that he will pray in the spirit and pray with understanding. Meaning that he will pray in the language he knows, whatever that is. We can be pretty certain he spoke both Hebrew and Greek, though it is possible when he spoke in Hebrew to the mob at Jerusalem, he was actually speaking in tongues. Not implausible.

Nothing that I've said is a repudiation of praying. I said no such thing. Paul wrote the words. And it was he who called praying in tongues "fruitless." Argue with him, not me. But maybe you would consider that he was definitely not repudiating prayer when he wrote those words.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If you'll go back to my response, you'll see that I wrote that and in fact it is the reason why the antecedent of a particular verb must be carefully determined.

But let's go a bit higher in the text so you can see how perfectly Luke's grammar lines up.

So, the sentence or thought ends.


And here Luke re-iterates that they were continuously worshiping but the location of their worship is not specified as the upper room. The upper room was where the apostles returned. The sentence, "together with the women" is not even saying that the women were staying in the upper room. The inclusion of the women is in the activity "devoting themselves to prayer" not "staying."



Notice that it does not say that this event is in the upper room. It says that the event happened "in those days." In what days? The days when the apostles returned to the city. But remember that Luke said at the end of his gospel that when they returned to Jerusalem, they were "continuously in the temple." Their fear of the Jews was no longer an issue. Jesus' resurrection removed their fear of the Jews. The upper room could not accommodate 120 people and there is never anywhere in the text that it says there were 120 in the room even if it were capable of holding that many. The room was many blocks away from the temple and could not contain 120, much more, thousands. And, if the 120 were inside the upper room, the apostles and the 120 would have had to come out of it to address the thousands who rushed to them upon hearing the noises they heard. If you remember it had a single door and this was the room where Jesus appeared in the midst of the eleven even though the door was locked.

......





It can only 'clearly' indicate this if you ignore basic rules of grammatical construction.



The passage never mentions either reduction or increase. The verbs and their nouns are totally consistent, describing the number of people performing whatever action described. There were 120 people in attendance when the replacement apostle was selected. That selection likely occurred in the temple, not the upper room. At no time does the text say that 120 people were in the upper room.



Well, I totally agree with you there. That can be a problem. An even bigger problem is when one goes to the text and totally ignores the rules of grammar as if God, the being who invented language, is a poor grammarian. Poor reading leads to poor understanding. This entire passage says nothing about a doctrine. It doesn't limit who received spiritual gifts except for this one day and maybe not even that. Nothing is said about the 120 at all on this particular day. As Acts will later testify and the epistles also, non-apostles received spiritual gifts.

[/QUOTE]
I see that you are convinced about this in spite of the clear text of the passage, so I don't think I can add anything more to our discussion.

Of course it doesn't really matter for someone who is not Cessationist and believes that tongues and prophecy are still available for modern believers if approached according to Scripture.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

PAUL SAID THAT!

I didn't say it. What I believe is that he is pointing out the absurdity of speaking in tongues "only to God", who provided that person the gift of the words being spoken. Does God want to talk to himself by directing somebody to speak in a language they don't understand, the words being of no benefit even to themselves? How bizarre is that?

When Paul says they are only speaking to God, he's pointing out that this message from God is returning to himself and not achieving the benefit intended. If it were performed as intended, it might cause a foreign speaking non-believer to recognize that these words could only be coming from God. If God ever eye-rolled, this would be the perfect time to do it. But personally, I think he's too loving a God to be that mean. Thus he sent Paul to gently teach them the reason behind the supernatural gift of speaking other languages.

He is basically writing about using tongues without interpretation in church meetings. He is not using the remark to describe private prayer in tongues, which are in the category of "different kinds of tongues" listed in 1 Corinthians 12.

Private tongues are not messages from God. They are prayers to God. There is the view that even tongues as used as the ministry gift in church meetings are also prayers to God and should be interpreted that way. If the tongues is a message from God, and is interpreted that way, why bother when prophecy will serve the same purpose? I am moving toward the view that spoken tongues in a church service is a prayer and the interpretation should be a prayer as well. If a person gives a tongues "message" and the interpretation is like a prophecy, then it might have been a prophecy and not the interpretation of the tongue so therefore, the interpretation of the particular tongue is still to be given.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Lots of straw men arguments in your response. This one is a doozy. Paul told the Corinthians that he will pray in the spirit and pray with understanding. Meaning that he will pray in the language he knows, whatever that is. We can be pretty certain he spoke both Hebrew and Greek, though it is possible when he spoke in Hebrew to the mob at Jerusalem, he was actually speaking in tongues. Not implausible.

Nothing that I've said is a repudiation of praying. I said no such thing. Paul wrote the words. And it was he who called praying in tongues "fruitless." Argue with him, not me. But maybe you would consider that he was definitely not repudiating prayer when he wrote those words.

I think you are confusing the gift of tongues with the grace of tongues. There is a major difference, and Paul quite clearly points out that difference in 1 Corinthians 14. But if you can't see that, then there is noting more to say.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I see that you are convinced about this in spite of the clear text of the passage, so I don't think I can add anything more to our discussion.

I am convinced BECAUSE of the clear text of the passage. God doesn't screw up grammar. He's not an author of confusion. The clear, perfect grammatical construction and attention to detail even to the point of naming and numbering each group to which he refers, proves that the intent was to make the message clear, not muddled.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Private tongues are not messages from God. They are prayers to God.

So, the God who supplies the words, wants you to speak those words to him. He's really praying to himself.

The other alternative, if you think that is an absurd conclusion, is that the gift of tongues (in private) is not God supplied. Because if God isn't supplying the words, who is? You? How is that a gift of God then?

Neither of those makes any sense to me. I think Paul was pretty clear in what he said. Whether in private or in public, the gift of tongues is for the unbeliever. If you're using it "on yourself," then it's fruitless. Nobody, including you, receives any benefit from this. God is supplying words for you to speak in order to bring other people to Christ. If you're talking over people in church or if you're speaking them without an interpreter so that the words are understood by NOBODY, you've merely edified yourself.

 

[Al Touthentop]

He is basically writing about using tongues without interpretation in church meetings. He is not using the remark to describe private prayer in tongues, which are in the category of "different kinds of tongues" listed in 1 Corinthians 12.

Chapter 12
Verse 4:
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit distributes them.

It is the Spirit which delivers the gifts. Not sometimes, always.

Verse 6:
There are different kinds of working, but in all of them and in everyone it is the same God at work.

Verse 7:
Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good


Chapter 14
Verse 9:
So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.

Verse 14:
For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

I am not being edified in truth. I may feel good about myself, but nothing has been learned.

 

[Al Touthentop]

I think you are confusing the gift of tongues with the grace of tongues. There is a major difference, and Paul quite clearly points out that difference in 1 Corinthians 14. But if you can't see that, then there is noting more to say.

Well if he's so clear about the distinction, how does he manage such clarity without even using the word 'grace' once in the 14th chapter?

 

[Dave L]

1 Corinthians 13:1
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

This pertained to the tongues era. But also pertains to now in our use of scripture.

 

[Dave L]

This is just a thought to ponder...
If 120 disciples spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost, and just 12 of them were the Apostles of Christ, and if tongues and prophecy were Apostolic sign gifts as some have taught, then how come the other 108 spoke in tongues, including Mary the mother of Jesus, and the other women associated with the disciples (possibly Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha, and other women, as well as Lazarus, Zacchaeus, and others)?

Also, the household of Cornelius, the 12 disciples at Ephesus, and hundreds of Samaritans when Peter and John laid hands on them?

Wouldn't that cause the teaching that tongues and prophecy were gifts limited to the Apostles, to go down in flames like the Hindenberg?

Pentecostals may not be the only ones who leave their brains at home when they go to church!

Only the 12 were present in the outpouring. The 120 were at a different time and place.

 

[Dave L]

Oh, boy. Here we go again.

Which means you cannot refute it.