Speak in Tongues - essential :

[ViaCrucis]

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

 

[1stcenturylady]

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.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Can someone without the gift of tongues pray with "groanings too deep for words"? Or do only a special extra spiritual caste of Christians have access to this deep groaning so that, so that for the rest of us when words fail us, the Spirit is not present or available to us in those moments.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken Rank]

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 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.

Blessings and peace.
Ken

 

[Biblicist]

But for somebody to come to the conclusion that one is lost unless they speak in tongues is themselves deceived in my opinion.Ken

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.

 

[1miraclechild]

Hi Rebecca, which post are you referring to?

:'( Sorry redleghunter,
I've Honestly Looked & Searched All the Way Back to Page 1; Unfortunately I, myself Could Not Find. +Plus Unfortunately, I Erased your Comment before Replying. I will Say you Said Quote these 2!
love & prayers ;-) Rebecca


Another Day Closer To Heaven

 

[Biblicist]

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

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.

Note: Just to be sure that we are on the same page, each and every word in my above paragraph means exactly what it does elsewhere in the passage.​

 

[Anto9us]

PAUL'S CONTRAST OF "PRAYING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING" AND
"praying in the Spirit also" is too obvious to deserve debate here... good gosh

 

[swordsman1]

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.

In the other examples of tongues in Acts where does it say that the phenomenon was different to the tongues described in Acts 2? If it was something different Luke would surely have told us. Rather Luke uses the exact same terminology as Acts 2 and tells us in Acts 10 that only on the basis of the Gentiles experience being exactly the same as Pentecost, were they accepted into the church.

As has been pointed out to you on countless occasions, I Cor 14:2 doesn't say tongues is a non-human language. The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is Paul addressing a specific problem in the Corinthian church whereby some of them were speaking in a language that was not recognized by the rest of the congregation. That doesn't mean it was non-human. If someone was speaking say Persian in a small house church in Greece, then it is unsurprising that no one understood them. Only God would understand what was said. So Paul begins to address the problem by stating the obvious: "For one who speaks in an [unrecognized] tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the congregation] understands".

It is not as you suppose a blanket statement about tongues whereby no one on the face of the earth would ever understand tongues. If it was then Paul would be lying because the tongues in Acts were understood. And the context makes it clear that the 'no one' is referring to the congregation.

This is the problem with Charismatic/Pentecostal theology. The established rules of hermeneutics go out of the window and has to rely on exegetical fallacies in order to try and get the 'experiences' they espouse to align with scripture.

 

[swordsman1]

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."

Then why did you also say:

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.

Was the Lord lying to you?

But now that your method of attaining the gift does not match 1 Corinthians you have decided you do not have the GIFT of tongues after all, despite what the Lord "told" you, but rather the ABILITY of tongues and so the theology of 1 Corinthians no longer applies. How very convenient. Like the others who have now decided they don't have the GIFT, you can disregard all the theology and regulations that Paul gave regarding tongues because you have something different. Wonderful. You can now freely speak in tongues in church without interpretation along with everyone else at once, as Paul's instructions no longer apply.

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.

So the disciples in Acts didn't have the gift of tongues after all, they had the ABILITY? And you have the same ABILITY as them? Not the Corinthian GIFT of tongues.

How do you decide whether you have the GIFT or the ABILITY of tongues? Do you toss a coin? Do they sound different? Is the ABILITY speaking in a foreign language as the disciples did in Acts?

What exactly is the difference between the GIFT and the ABILITY of speaking in tongues?

 

[Anto9us]

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.

 

[swordsman1]

Even though Paul has told us (1Cor 14:5) that he wants all of us to be able to speak in tongues

Paul is not saying in his 'wish' in 14:5 that he expected everyone to speak in tongues. It was a wishful ideal the same as he wished everyone was single like him, not something he realistically expected to happen. Otherwise he would be contradicting himself because he makes it absolutely clear that not everyone would have the ability to speak in tongues:

1 Cor 12:29 "All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?

Rom 12:4-6 "For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. "

1 Cor 12:8-10 "To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues."

1 Cor 12:17-20 "If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body."​

Unless you are also going to tell me this doesn't apply as most tongues today is the ABILITY not the GIFT of tongues?

 

[1miraclechild]

Hi Rebecca, which post are you referring to?

Please Forgive me redleghunter,
I Honestly Thought for some reason you'd Said Acts 38; but Undoubtedly I was Mistaken, Sorry!
love & prayers ;-) Rebecca


Another Day Closer To Heaven

 

[swordsman1]

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).

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.

 

[Ken Rank]

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.

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 remember with great clarity a prayer I did almost 20 years ago. I had encountered a lot of confusing information and backed away from the Word for a time. When I came back I prayed that I didn't care if He wanted me to become a Baptist, a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon....whatever was what His will for me was, I would accept it. I am sharing this to merely point out that when I explored this topic I did it with truly an open mind. I believe the gifts are real... I know it... but I also know that the Spirit will manifest itself differently in each person/part of the body.

I realize you have similar thoughts here.

Peace to you and yours.
Ken

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Praying in the Spirit is praying under the influence of the Spirit. It is nothing necessarily to do with tongues.

Romans 8 makes no mention of tongues.

 

[Ken Rank]

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.

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.

Gosh... worship (shachah in Hebrew) means to bend and bow but within that is a picture of submission (we don't bow before anyone we don't "serve"). So anything we do based on our submission can be worship... from prayer or singing in praise... to walking in our calling and even being obedient. If we do this because of our submission to His Lordship... that is worship and it doesn't have to include tongues.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

It's not commentary. It is actually the context as Peter delivers the Gospel.

It wasn't “declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues." This is the literal quote:

"we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.”

Works is the operative word and then Peter addresses all what these works are...

Acts 2: NKJV

22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; 24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

 

[swordsman1]

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.

Ah, that old chestnut.

Look at the verse in context:

1 Cor 13:1-3 "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. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing."

Paul uses five conditional IF statements in 1 Cor 13:1-3 which were both hypothetical (they were imagined scenarios, not things he actually did) AND hyperbole (the imagined scenarios were wildly exaggerated examples of each gift) - to make the point that even having spiritual gifts to the highest conceivable degree would be worthless without love:
- tongues, even to the degree of speaking the language of angels...
- the gift of prophecy even to the degree of knowing ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge (ie becoming omniscient)...
- the gift of faith even to the degree of removing mountains...
- the gift of giving even to the degree of giving up ALL your possessions...
- and even giving up your own life...

....would all be to no avail without love.

None of those exaggerated hypothetical examples represent the normal operation of those gifts. Paul is saying that even if someone had the gift of tongues to such an exalted degree that they spoke in the language of angels, but didn't have love, it would be worthless to them.

 

[@Rudolph]

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 !!

Careful now, speaking in tongues is for self edifying. If done in church one needs someone to interpret.
As to not being a child of the most high should you not be able or speak in tongues, it's not biblical.
Christ's body has many members all with different functions. I honestly wouldn't advocate this to new believes, instead of aiding them as babes, you might just make them feel unwanted or like they have done something wrong.