Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Even if it is the same author?
Yes, what someone means in a given instance depends entirely on the context in which they say it. A biblical writer is capable of all the same nuance in communication as you or me.
-CryptoLutheran
Well, it is my opinion that Paul knew what praying in the Spirit was, and wasn't about to confuse anyone by using the same phrase for something else entirely. Besides, it fits praying for the brethren, even when you don't know what to pray for, but the Spirit knows, as he said in Romans 8.
I'm a writer too. So I'm just putting myself in his shoes. You believe what you want.
I appreciate your tone. We agree on some things and not only others... I have been dealing with this teaching for 22 years now. There are many who hold to the position I shared here in Kentucky (the "unless you speak in tongues you don't have the Spirit") so I have gone over this so many time. Perhaps I will share in full why I reject the idea, but it doesn't matter to me so much. I believe one can speak or pray in tongues, but most of the examples in Scripture are not unknown tongues, but rather the KNOWN languages. At Shavuot (Pentecost) for example, each many heard in the language of his land and since the message was being sent out to the nations, this was a great sign of that fresh work. But for somebody to come to the conclusion that one is lost unless they speak in tongues is themselves deceived in my opinion.Here in Australia there appear to be very few Pentecostals who believe that unless someone can pray in the Spirit (tongues) that they are not Saved, where I would be surprised if there were more than 1% who actually believe this.
But on the other hand, for those us who allow the Holy Spirit to pray through them to the Father, when we encounter those who we would deem to hold to a cessationist worldview that is both long-term and aggressive in character, then this can be a bit problematic for us in that for those who both understand and have experienced the fullness of the Spirit through Spiritual prayer, we can be at a loss as to why anyone would go against the plain sense of Scripture regarding how we can all pray in the Spirit.
Even though Paul has told us (1Cor 14:5) that he wants all of us to be able to speak in tongues, he does go to some length in chapter 14 to explain that as tongues are always directed to the Father within inarticulate words that this does not build up the Church as does prophecy, which is how the Spirit speaks to the congregation whereas tongues are always directed to the Father in words of praise and adoration.
So even though our ability to praise the Father in tongues is probably one of the greatest abilities that we have has mere mortals, Paul does point out that the congregational setting is there for the building up of the Saints which is something that our ability to worship the Father is the Holy Spirit does not really do.
So in many ways, even though our ability to worship the Father in the Holy Spirit does not really benefit the entire congregation, I would say that our ability to praise the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit is probably the greatest ability of all the nine Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (14:7-11).
Much the same can be said for those church goers who have never really heard the Gospel back in their home churches, where having heard the Gospel at say an Evangelistic rally that when they return to their home church where very few (if any) actually know the Lord in a personal way that this can also 'divide the church', where the liberals will be offended by the new found faith of those who have just embraced the Lord.
I've often wondered how I would have gone if I had come to the Lord through a congregation that incorrectly believes that one must be able to speak in tongues before they can be deemed to be Saved, would I have simply gone with the flow of things or would I have moved away from their teachings - who knows. My own experience found me encountering the Lord within a liberal-evangelical congregation so my roots are within the cessationist world which has allowed me to gain a pretty good understanding of how many such individuals think.But for somebody to come to the conclusion that one is lost unless they speak in tongues is themselves deceived in my opinion.Ken
:'( Sorry redleghunter,Hi Rebecca, which post are you referring to?
So what you seem to be saying is that we can take whatever words we want with Paul and have them mean whatever we want them to mean. This sounds much the same as the theological approach taken by Humpty Dumpty, where he said "A word means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" which seems to be how many cessationists approach the Scriptures, though this is not only the dilemma of the cessationist mindset but it can often be encountered from time to time within the Pentecostal mindset as well.Yes, what someone means in a given instance depends entirely on the context in which they say it. A biblical writer is capable of all the same nuance in communication as you or me.
-CryptoLutheran
As I mentioned a few times in this thread, this is why 1stCenturyLady and a small number of Pentecostals feel that they have a need to say that the Holy Spirit fell upon both the 120 and the unregenerate crowd in that unlike the Epistles and with the other examples in Acts, the situation in Acts 2 on the surface goes against the grain in that on this single occasion tongues were given in known human languages.
So, even though on the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 in known human languages and that this differs from what Paul has told us in 1 Cor 14:2;
(14:2) For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people but to God. Indeed, no one understands them; they utter mysteries by the Spirit.
Those who feel that they have a need to try and reconcile the known human languages of Acts with Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 13 & 14 that tongues are always spoken to God within inarticulate tongues, they need to keep in mind a number of things:
1. The Day of Pentecost was a unique and unrepeatable event in that this was this giving of the Holy Spirit to the Children of God.
2. The content of what the 120 were saying to the Father matches that of 1 Cor 14 in that they are also words of praise being directed to the Father and not some supposed Gospel message to the unregenerate. As with the Epistles, the tongues that Paul speaks of and the occurrence on the Day of Pentecost, both are being directed to the Father and as Paul has told us, tongues are ALWAYS directed to the Father and NEVER to man, so Acts 2 is in line with 1Cor 14.
3. On the Day of Pentecost tongues were also accompanied by the sound of a rushing wind and tongues of fire resting upon the Believers, this has never occurred since this time.
4. The crowd were so confused by what they were hearing that this matches what Paul said in 1Cor 14:23 that when the unregenerate encounter everyone speaking in tongues that “they will say that you are mad”. If Peter had not provided an evangelistic message then the crowd would have moved on thinking that the Galileans were in fact drunk.
5. Whereas Paul forbids the corporate use of tongues where everyone within a congregation sings or speaks words of praise to the Father during times of praise and worship, we find all of the 120 speaking words of praise to the Father on the Day of Pentecost.
6. Paul also demands that every occurrence of tongues first be interpreted before another is given and of course this did not happen on the Day of Pentecost.
7. Unlike congregational tongues which must only be undertaken when they know that someone is present who the Holy Spirit provides an interpretation, this did not occur on the Day of Pentecost.
You would presume wrong. I didn't say that I had the gift of tongues. What I said was:
"I began to pray in tongues at length and discovered in time that I too had the gift or the ability to speak and pray in tongues."
Was the Lord lying to you?The Lord "told" me that the reason I could imitate it so well was because my ability to do so was the gift itself being manifested.
It's quite obvious by reading the various accounts in the Book of Acts and the teachings in Corinthians that there isn't only one type of tongues.
Even though Paul has told us (1Cor 14:5) that he wants all of us to be able to speak in tongues
Please Forgive me redleghunter,Hi Rebecca, which post are you referring to?
I would say that our ability to praise the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit is probably the greatest ability of all the nine Manifestations of the Holy Spirit (14:7-11).
I think in some respects I had an advantage, yet at times I also see this as a disadvantage. Namely, that I didn't come to the Lord until I was 29. That meant (on the negative side) that I missed out on a solid upbringing. But on the positive side, I really didn't have a bias because I really didn't know what to expect. Truth would be whatever it was and I knew to conform to it... not make it conform to me.I've often wondered how I would have gone if I had come to the Lord through a congregation that incorrectly believes that one must be able to speak in tongues before they can be deemed to be Saved, would I have simply gone with the flow of things or would I have moved away from their teachings - who knows. My own experience found me encountering the Lord within a liberal-evangelical congregation so my roots are within the cessationist world which has allowed me to gain a pretty good understanding of how many such individuals think.
As with most of us, we tend to fall into line with whatever group that we find ourselves within and I can imagine that for those who belong to such congregations that their argument for this view could be seen as quite compelling. From my observation and experience over the years with the situation here in Australia, individuals who belong to such congregations tend to be taught that they must submit to the whims and views of their leadership and they rarely seem to engage with recognised Pentecostal scholars and commentators, in fact, as with any group that has a strong overbearing leadership style they will generally be encouraged to stay away from serious discussion and simply repeat what they have been taught at congregational level.
Well, it is my opinion that Paul knew what praying in the Spirit was, and wasn't about to confuse anyone by using the same phrase for something else entirely. Besides, it fits praying for the brethren, even when you don't know what to pray for, but the Spirit knows, as he said in Romans 8.
I agree... but definitions matter. If @Biblicist is saying that praising the Father through the power of the Holy Spirit is only through tongues, then I would reject that conclusion.Paul doesn't agree with you. He puts it at the bottom of a list of gifts ranked by greatness in 1 Cor 12:28.
It's not commentary. It is actually the context as Peter delivers the Gospel.There has certainly been a huge amount of older commentary that has suggested that the words that the Holy Spirit spoke through the 120 were supposed to be an evangelistic message to the unregenerate Jews but there is nothing in the context that suggests that this was the case. What we do see from the text is that they were (v.11) “declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues” which is exactly the same as what occurs during times of praise and worship within the context of the congregational setting. As with 1Cor 14:2 the tongues of Acts 2 were being directed toward the Father which is who the Holy Spirit will always speak to when he prays through us.
1Co 13:1
Though I speak with the tongues of men
and of angels,
and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
Is it an "established rule of hermeneutics" that angellos here means "non-human being" as it does many other times elsewhere in the New Testament?
1 Cor 13:1 clearly establishes the possibility of non-human languages being spoken as a charismatic gift.
Period.
Careful now, speaking in tongues is for self edifying. If done in church one needs someone to interpret.NO tongues no spirit ..yep none of his (only religious in your own way not Gods !)
Repent..be Baptized (full immersion ) your bit of obedience ..
then ask God through Jesus Christ and (if your fair dinkum ,open to him ) receive HIS Spirit..easy..and free !!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?