SPEAKING IN TONGUES: Help make this the DEFINITIVE learning thread

[zeke37]

[quote oscarr]Obviously that is the level of your faith. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you dictate to others what their faith should be concerning the gifts of the Spirit.
​

ok, there is the remark that I thought you would make...well, I thought one of you would make eventually...

you now claim my faith is at a lower level than yours...
you imply that you faith is higher because you receive the so called Gift.

shame. if that alone does not get you to re-think your position, not much will

if I heard a sermon in french, I would not even know when to say Amen,

That's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14... No problems with that.


​

he said that all through the chapter...

unles it was interpreted for me by someone that spoke both french and English tongues

Absolutely! That's why Paul strong advocated that if people wanted to speak in tongues in a personal way to God without interpretation, they should do it in private with God.

​

tongues = languages...
Paul never said what you think he said.
what he teaches is that if no translater is present,
to translate your (let's say Hebrew) tongue
into the audiences (let's say Greek) tongue,
then keep silent...
do not confuse the others with your foreign (unknown) tongue

they won't even know when to say AMEN...
no one would understand you...
you'd be speaking to the wind....
you'd be as a barbarian to them....and they to you

huh???
what has this to do with tongues?

The question was that does tongues make us better Christians? My answer was my way of saying "no". Using a spanner does not make a mechanic better or worse. It is his basic training and experience that determines how good he is. Actually there is no such thing as a bad, good, or better Christian. There is only one level.


​

yet you put "faith" on "levels" earlier in your post???

We are all debtors to grace and no one has been born again better than anyone else. Distinctions between the quality of Christians is a fleshly man thought up idea based on some thinking they are better than the common herd and who think they have the right to judge others.


either could I...
but I don't know why anyone
would want to mumble ecstatic charismatic prayer to God either...
seeing He understands English and all tongues.

but you guys can leave it to chance if ya wanna
​

My view about your last comment is that if God has not given you the revelation about the usefulness and purpose of the gift of tongues, then God is with holding from you. He is not meaning for you to have it. It is not one of the spiritual tools that He is providing you. I don't have any problem with that


​

Now God is withholding from me...!!!
lol. see what your tradition does?

Actually, it is the same when we try to witness to a sinner and they show no interest in our message. It is because God has bypassed that person and is going to leave the person to face judgement and condemnation. It probably means that God has not elected that person for salvation anyway. The invitation goes out to all mankind, but only those whom God has elected will actually be saved.

​

IMO that is a very narrow minded view...
there would be no point to life
if God had already predetermined who was saved and who is not...
but that is for another thread.

sure, God predetermined SOME....to further His plan.
the elect
but they have earned the predestination already,
(again for another thread)
so the rest can come to God, if they so CHOOSE.

every single individual that has ever lived or will ever live,
will be given the oppertunity for Salvation,
else Christ did not die for us ALL.
and we know He did. even the murderers.

So, if you don't believe in Pentecostal/Charismatic theology, then it means that God is not wanting you to enter into that type of Christianity.

​

or it means that that theology/type of Christianity is wrong/dangerous even...and detrimental to the Body

It is a matter of living and working within God's will for our lives. This does not mean though that we can dictate to all Christians that the Pentecostal way is wrong in general.

​

if that is what God has put on ones heart to do, they sure can....

Jesus Himself did,
as did Paul and the rest of the disciples/apostles.
How many times did Christ and Paul correct folks
especially those in religious authority????

There are many thousands of Christians where it is correct and in God's will for them to express their Christian faith in that way. And who is qualified to judge them negatively?

​

the Bible is...rightly divided.
whole thoughts, not a line here or there...
IOW, the entire chapter is about the same basic subject and it is not chrismatic ecstatic tongues.

Just to change the subject a little: I have noticed that one or two are criticising you in a negative way for your views. My view is that what is said on this thread is fair debate, and personal issues should not enter into it. You have the right to have your own brand of faith and maintain your own position about what you believe and practice.

​

we all have that right, right or wrong...

So I think that you can safely ignore the implication that you may not be right with God because you have a contrary view to some. I don't share that judgment of you.
​

thanks, but it seems that your post reflects a different position in a few places.

 

[mark kennedy]

Sup brother! Glad to see you stopped by . . . been a LONG time.

Too long, thanks for inviting me.

Problem is the antecedant usage tho:

Acts 2:1-4
When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.
NASU

Who is "they"?

The Apostles, remember this is 50 days after the resurrection.

Antecedently, "they" is:

Acts 1:15-16
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said, 16 "Brethren,
NASU

Do you really think they are going to fit 120 people in the upper room?

the brethren which consisted of 120 people. I do understand that the pericope of the choosing of Matthias is in between, BUT the narrative never separates the Apostles from the 120 . . . further it would be the 12 coming out to speak now, as the 12th position that Judas left vacant is now filled. Either way tho, 11 speaking or 12 speaking, it doesnt cut it because the GROUP of believers/brothers is what is referred to as "they" are part of the entire group referred to in 1:26 as distinct from the Apostles.

The Apostles choose Matthias by lot, they received no divine guidance to that effect, Paul was the 12th Apostle. What is more, I'm sure they fellowshiped with the other disciples but there is no direct reference to them in the second chapter. At any rate, there is a list of those in the Upper Room:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1:13,14)

That is your antecedent.

Not QUITE right, speaking in a language that no one understands WITHOUT INTERPRETATION WHILE IN A GROUP SETTING defeats the usage of the MINISTRY of tongues to a congregation . . . I think that this is a bit more semantically and textually correct.

Speaking in tongues in private defeats the purpose of the gift unless it's understood, Paul makes this abundantly clear in Corinthians 14.

I would WAY differ . . . but this is not a discussion on SPirit Baptism . . . we can do that one separate tho . . . I would love to discuss that too.

Ok, in fact there is a special forum just for discussing the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Absolutely . . . many are even heretical, and severly heretical. I do believe that many Pent/Charis's do not emphasize the character changes that the Spirit brings from a walk that is in line with Gal 5 . . . and they should JUST AS MUCH AS THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SPIRIT. Otherwise there is no substance to the showing of the Spirit in the lives of transformed sinners in the light of the cross.

Ok you lost me, of course the fruit of the Spirit is the evidence of the work of the Spirit. Jesus makes that clear in the Upper Room and Paul elaborates on this at length in I Corinthians 13. They were carnal, there is no question about that but the gifts were still being manifest. They were speaking in tongues sure enough but no one understood them which does not edify the church which is the purpose of the gift.

Lookin forward to your return from your tour ma' man.

Gods safety upon you there!

Looking forward to it was well, it's been a long time since I got into this topic. It would be nice if we had the time to do expositions of the passages in Acts as well as Corinthians 12,13 and 14. I expect that's what we will end up doing before it's over.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ARBITER01]

The Apostles choose Matthias by lot, they received no divine guidance to that effect, Paul was the 12th Apostle.

That's incorrect, scripture is quite clear about his inclusion as the 12th apostle after they lost Judas,..

Act 1:26 And they gave lots for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Unless you are attempting to say that Luke lied to us when he wrote the account, Paul is the 13th apostle according to scripture.

 

[mark kennedy]

That's incorrect, scripture is quite clear about his inclusion as the 12th apostle after they lost Judas,..

That may be clear to you but Paul was the 12th Apostle, God never told them to appoint another Apostle.

Unless you are attempting to say that Luke lied to us when he wrote the account, Paul is the 13th apostle according to scripture.

All the Scriptures say is that Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Now there is reference to the 12 so the point is purely academic but to say it's incorrect that Paul was God's choice to replace Judas is a matter of opinion. However, I am anything but dogmatic about my position and open to alternative views.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[ARBITER01]

That may be clear to you but Paul was the 12th Apostle, God never told them to appoint another Apostle.



All the Scriptures say is that Paul was Apostle to the Gentiles. Now there is reference to the 12 so the point is purely academic but to say it's incorrect that Paul was God's choice to replace Judas is a matter of opinion. However, I am anything but dogmatic about my position and open to alternative views.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Sorry, the Holy Spirit speaks very clear through Luke about the event. Matthias was included "with" the eleven "apostles." Apostles being plural here in the Greek, meaning that he was number 12.

Your opinion here does not trump scripture.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

all I can say is that the testiment of Job is not scripture...and could be fantasy.....we cannot even date it.

plus, I do not concede that the Bible ever speaks of ecstatic tongues.
further, you have not proven your stance to me even about the testiment of Job, but I said I'd be willing to concede it's possibility

but PROOF? no friend..no proof.

C'mon now Zeke . . . this is just weak!

Of course the Testament of Job is not Scripture, I have emphasized over and again that it is not authoritative to formulate doctrine, sheesh!

And it is dated to be AT LEAST in the era of contemporaneous to 1st Cent Palestine.

plus, I do not concede that the Bible ever speaks of ecstatic tongues.

You dont need to and that is NOT what I was saying . . . .:o

I am sorry . . . it really seems that you are having a hard time thinking critically enough to get what I am saying (no offense brother, seriously) . . . it seems that sometimes certain things cannot be done by certain people . . .

I will try one last time

The Testament of Job is not scripture, so to use it to formulate biblical doctrine exclusively IS ERROR. Same page with me right?

However, one of the primary concepts in hermeneutics (correct interpretation) is that of HISTORICAL USAGE and CULTURAL USAGE concerning both TERMS (words) and CONCEPTS. Still same page?

This is because we need to know both, what the context of usage is for authors in HISTORICAL usage of terms AND for the READERS in historical understanding and CULTURAL USAGE.

IE I say "bat" . . . to us, due to baseball, we can interpret 2 things, a nocturnal animal, or a stick used to hit a ball in a game.

BUT, say we are in 15th cent england and I say "bat" because baseball does not exist (i think) MY WORD CANNOT MEAN THAT BECAUSE THAT MEANING WAS NOT YET HISTORICALLY NOR CULTURALLY UNDERSTOOD. However, whatever meanings that ARE viable COULD be understood with my saying "bat." Following me?

THEREFORE, historically, we see the usage of glossa and dialektos as ENCOMPASSING and INCLUDING the concept of ecstatic unintelligible speech by the testament of job in that:

1. It is written in Greek
2. It is contemporaneous to the time we are speaking of (1st cent Palestinian/Medditeranian Judeo/Christian era)

AND, culturally, we see that is was within the corpus of texts that made up the religious theological views of the same people group we are speaking of.


ERGO: HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY THE WORDS GLOSSA AND DIALEKTOS HAVE WITHIN THEIR ACCEPTED MEANING THE CONCEPTS OF ECSTATIC UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH.

To concede this as fact, when it is indeed fact, does NOT REQUIRE YOU TO SAY THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF THIS!

All it does is lay the ground work and context of the words . . .

Now if you cannot follow me here (or will not) . . . then I really am at a loss . . .

 

[ARBITER01]

I find it quite comical that zeke is trying to rewrite Greek usage and structure somehow. You've more than explained many aspects of Greek language to us and him, yet he goes out of his way to deny the laws of it.

If I remember correctly, you have some college in Greek studies, don't you Matt?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I find it quite comical that zeke is trying to rewrite Greek usage and structure somehow. You've more than explained many aspects of Greek language to us and him, yet he goes out of his way to deny the laws of it.

If I remember correctly, you have some college in Greek studies, don't you Matt?

yep . . . dont ask me to translate as i read directly from the Greek text into English like my professors tho.

 

[ARBITER01]

yep . . . dont ask me to translate as i read directly from the Greek text into English like my professors tho.

I thought it was you I remembered on here. I think zeke needs to back up and regroup then, because trying to tell someone how the Greek language operates in our bible without having any formal training in it, can be comical, as well as very discrediting on his part.

He should be asking you questions.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Too long, thanks for inviting me.



The Apostles, remember this is 50 days after the resurrection.



Do you really think they are going to fit 120 people in the upper room?



The Apostles choose Matthias by lot, they received no divine guidance to that effect, Paul was the 12th Apostle. What is more, I'm sure they fellowshiped with the other disciples but there is no direct reference to them in the second chapter. At any rate, there is a list of those in the Upper Room:

"And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren." (Acts 1:13,14)

That is your antecedent.



Speaking in tongues in private defeats the purpose of the gift unless it's understood, Paul makes this abundantly clear in Corinthians 14.





Ok, in fact there is a special forum just for discussing the ministry of the Holy Spirit.



Ok you lost me, of course the fruit of the Spirit is the evidence of the work of the Spirit. Jesus makes that clear in the Upper Room and Paul elaborates on this at length in I Corinthians 13. They were carnal, there is no question about that but the gifts were still being manifest. They were speaking in tongues sure enough but no one understood them which does not edify the church which is the purpose of the gift.



Looking forward to it was well, it's been a long time since I got into this topic. It would be nice if we had the time to do expositions of the passages in Acts as well as Corinthians 12,13 and 14. I expect that's what we will end up doing before it's over.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Do you really think they are going to fit 120 people in the upper room?

Why not? The text does not tell us the size of the room . . . and a reading of the text is clear that they were all there

Acts 1:13-16
3 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, 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. 14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along withthe women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
NASU

See the "at this time," that is when they were ALL in the upper room, and Luke says the gathering was about 120.

The Apostles choose Matthias by lot, they received no divine guidance to that effect, Paul was the 12th Apostle.

That is a THEORY and never spoken of in Scripture. AND it is based upon the false assumption of there being ONLY 12 apostles. We know that there were AT LEAST about 15-17, Paul mentions 2 in Romans, even refers to Luke as one and some others.

I find it hard to see how manifestly the Spirit works in Acts, speaking, leading all in unity and at the founding of the church He is suddenly silent about one of the MAIN aspects in the foundation of the church . . . APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP. Not only that, but Luke cites Peter as AUTHORITATIVELT CITING SCRIPTURE!

Acts 1:20
'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT';
and,
'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
NASU

further, in line with the "only 12 apostles" arguement (and even for others who put what qualifications an apostle must have) PAUL DOESNT EVEN QUALIFY TO PETER'S OWN STATEMENTS OF WHAT JUDAS' OFFICE MUST BE FILLED BY:

Acts 1:21-22
21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
NASU

further, I fail to see how Peter can be cited as saying "You have chosen one of these two" (where the antecedant is Lord) and it not be Jesus who has done the choosing. The assumptions that what they did was not of the Lord is STAGGERING TO THE ENTIRE TEXT. Luke assumes and uses language that assumes the decision was the right decision FROM THE LORD.

Acts 1:24-26
24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
NASU

That is your antecedent.

But u forgot the next verse brother!

Acts 1:15
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
NASU

the "at this time" makes the 120 concurrent to the previous verses. The antecedant remains the 120 not the 12.

but there is no direct reference to them in the second chapter.

I am sure that you are well aware that chapter breaks are not inspired . The MSS's that we have being unicals and all run together . . . so any break is break in thought. The "they" of 2:1 MUST have an antecedant per usage . . . the nearest antecedant is 1:15 which is the entire gathering of the brethren.

Speaking in tongues in private defeats the purpose of the gift unless it's understood,

No it would be "speaking in tongues IN PUBLIC defeats the purpose of the gift WITHIN THE CHURCH CONTEXT unless it is understood"

I would remind you that neither Acts 10 or 19 have interpretation as part of the expression of tongues.

The context of chpt 14 is WITHIN THE CHURCH and Paul only mentions the private use of tongues in passing. BUT when he does, he does mention that it is beneficial and that he does it all the time.

1 Cor 14:18-19
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church
NASU

(notice the dichotomy? He does it plenty in and outside the church, HOWEVER IN THE CHURCH . . .)

Ok, in fact there is a special forum just for discussing the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

k, lets do it

Ok you lost me, of course the fruit of the Spirit is the evidence of the work of the Spirit.

It is the evidence of the INTERNAL work of the Spirit upon the heart of a changed believer.

My point was that I was agreeing that many of my theological brothers emphasize the external manifestations of the Spirit and neglect the gifts, and that I believe it should be equally as important . . . gifts and fruit.

It would be nice if we had the time to do expositions of the passages in Acts as well as Corinthians 12,13 and 14. I expect that's what we will end up doing before it's over.

Indeed

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

[quote oscarr]Obviously that is the level of your faith. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you dictate to others what their faith should be concerning the gifts of the Spirit.
​

ok, there is the remark that I thought you would make...well, I thought one of you would make eventually...

you now claim my faith is at a lower level than yours...
you imply that you faith is higher because you receive the so called Gift.

shame. if that alone does not get you to re-think your position, not much will

if I heard a sermon in french, I would not even know when to say Amen,

That's what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14... No problems with that.


​

he said that all through the chapter...

unles it was interpreted for me by someone that spoke both french and English tongues

Absolutely! That's why Paul strong advocated that if people wanted to speak in tongues in a personal way to God without interpretation, they should do it in private with God.

​

tongues = languages...
Paul never said what you think he said.
what he teaches is that if no translater is present,
to translate your (let's say Hebrew) tongue
into the audiences (let's say Greek) tongue,
then keep silent...
do not confuse the others with your foreign (unknown) tongue

they won't even know when to say AMEN...
no one would understand you...
you'd be speaking to the wind....
you'd be as a barbarian to them....and they to you

huh???
what has this to do with tongues?

The question was that does tongues make us better Christians? My answer was my way of saying "no". Using a spanner does not make a mechanic better or worse. It is his basic training and experience that determines how good he is. Actually there is no such thing as a bad, good, or better Christian. There is only one level.


​

yet you put "faith" on "levels" earlier in your post???

We are all debtors to grace and no one has been born again better than anyone else. Distinctions between the quality of Christians is a fleshly man thought up idea based on some thinking they are better than the common herd and who think they have the right to judge others.


either could I...
but I don't know why anyone
would want to mumble ecstatic charismatic prayer to God either...
seeing He understands English and all tongues.

but you guys can leave it to chance if ya wanna
​

My view about your last comment is that if God has not given you the revelation about the usefulness and purpose of the gift of tongues, then God is with holding from you. He is not meaning for you to have it. It is not one of the spiritual tools that He is providing you. I don't have any problem with that


​

Now God is withholding from me...!!!
lol. see what your tradition does?

Actually, it is the same when we try to witness to a sinner and they show no interest in our message. It is because God has bypassed that person and is going to leave the person to face judgement and condemnation. It probably means that God has not elected that person for salvation anyway. The invitation goes out to all mankind, but only those whom God has elected will actually be saved.

​

IMO that is a very narrow minded view...
there would be no point to life
if God had already predetermined who was saved and who is not...
but that is for another thread.

sure, God predetermined SOME....to further His plan.
the elect
but they have earned the predestination already,
(again for another thread)
so the rest can come to God, if they so CHOOSE.

every single individual that has ever lived or will ever live,
will be given the oppertunity for Salvation,
else Christ did not die for us ALL.
and we know He did. even the murderers.

So, if you don't believe in Pentecostal/Charismatic theology, then it means that God is not wanting you to enter into that type of Christianity.

​

or it means that that theology/type of Christianity is wrong/dangerous even...and detrimental to the Body

It is a matter of living and working within God's will for our lives. This does not mean though that we can dictate to all Christians that the Pentecostal way is wrong in general.

​

if that is what God has put on ones heart to do, they sure can....

Jesus Himself did,
as did Paul and the rest of the disciples/apostles.
How many times did Christ and Paul correct folks
especially those in religious authority????

There are many thousands of Christians where it is correct and in God's will for them to express their Christian faith in that way. And who is qualified to judge them negatively?

​

the Bible is...rightly divided.
whole thoughts, not a line here or there...
IOW, the entire chapter is about the same basic subject and it is not chrismatic ecstatic tongues.

Just to change the subject a little: I have noticed that one or two are criticising you in a negative way for your views. My view is that what is said on this thread is fair debate, and personal issues should not enter into it. You have the right to have your own brand of faith and maintain your own position about what you believe and practice.

​

we all have that right, right or wrong...

So I think that you can safely ignore the implication that you may not be right with God because you have a contrary view to some. I don't share that judgment of you.
​

thanks, but it seems that your post reflects a different position in a few places.

Thanks for your response. I am going to start another thread to continue our discussion on election.

 

[mark kennedy]

Why not? The text does not tell us the size of the room . . . and a reading of the text is clear that they were all there

Acts 1:13-16
3 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, 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. 14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along withthe women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers. 15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
NASU

See the "at this time," that is when they were ALL in the upper room, and Luke says the gathering was about 120.

Standing in the 'midst' of the brethren does not necessarily mean that the 120 were all gathered in the Upper Room. No doubt they were close by but all of them gathered into one room for nearly two months seems a little far fetched. Be that as it may, this should not distract from the main point that tongues were human languages.

That is a THEORY and never spoken of in Scripture. AND it is based upon the false assumption of there being ONLY 12 apostles. We know that there were AT LEAST about 15-17, Paul mentions 2 in Romans, even refers to Luke as one and some others.

That's very true and the '12' are mentioned repeatedly, Paul obviously accepted Mattias as the 12th Apostle. I just happen to think that Paul was God's choice for Judas' replacement but the question is purely academic.

I find it hard to see how manifestly the Spirit works in Acts, speaking, leading all in unity and at the founding of the church He is suddenly silent about one of the MAIN aspects in the foundation of the church . . . APOSTOLIC LEADERSHIP. Not only that, but Luke cites Peter as AUTHORITATIVELT CITING SCRIPTURE!

Acts 1:20
'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT';
and,
'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'
NASU

I agree that this quote is specifically indicating a replacement Apostle. That is about as far as the text will take you, whether or not God intended them to choose an Apostle by casting lots is another matter entirely. An Apostle has to be called and equipped by God for that office. Jesus never directed them to choose a replacement Apostle, they were told to go to Jerusalem and wait for the Holy Spirit.

further, in line with the "only 12 apostles" arguement (and even for others who put what qualifications an apostle must have) PAUL DOESNT EVEN QUALIFY TO PETER'S OWN STATEMENTS OF WHAT JUDAS' OFFICE MUST BE FILLED BY:

Acts 1:21-22
21 "Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.
NASU

Paul was nevertheless accepted as an Apostle and Peter's criteria was not based on any divine direction on the matter.

[quote[further, I fail to see how Peter can be cited as saying "You have chosen one of these two" (where the antecedant is Lord) and it not be Jesus who has done the choosing. The assumptions that what they did was not of the Lord is STAGGERING TO THE ENTIRE TEXT. Luke assumes and uses language that assumes the decision was the right decision FROM THE LORD.

Acts 1:24-26
24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place." 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.
NASU

Where does it say that the Lord has chosen on of those two? Peter prays that God will show them which one of the two are God's choice. The assumption that God directed them to do this, prior to the coming of the Holy Spirit is staggering to the totality of Scripture. It also makes very little sense that God would give them enough direction to boil it down to two choices and them 'reveal' the right choice on a roll of the dice.

But u forgot the next verse brother!

Acts 1:15
15 At this time Peter stood up in the midst of the brethren (a gathering of about one hundred and twenty persons was there together), and said,
NASU

the "at this time" makes the 120 concurrent to the previous verses. The antecedant remains the 120 not the 12.

I'm sure they were in close contact but at the time of Pentecost the 120 may or may not have been present. I expect they were but your antecedent does not make the case that the manifestation of tongues were not human languages.

I am sure that you are well aware that chapter breaks are not inspired . The MSS's that we have being unicals and all run together . . . so any break is break in thought. The "they" of 2:1 MUST have an antecedant per usage . . . the nearest antecedant is 1:15 which is the entire gathering of the brethren.

It's almost 2 months later, have you factored that into your scenario?

No it would be "speaking in tongues IN PUBLIC defeats the purpose of the gift WITHIN THE CHURCH CONTEXT unless it is understood"

It doesn't do me any good either if I don't understand what I am saying.

I would remind you that neither Acts 10 or 19 have interpretation as part of the expression of tongues.

That does not mean that the language was not understood. Technically at Pentecost there was no interpretation of tongues but only because the people hearing understood the language being spoken.

The context of chpt 14 is WITHIN THE CHURCH and Paul only mentions the private use of tongues in passing. BUT when he does, he does mention that it is beneficial and that he does it all the time.

1 Cor 14:18-19
18 I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; 19 however, in the church
NASU

(notice the dichotomy? He does it plenty in and outside the church, HOWEVER IN THE CHURCH . . .)

When Paul spoke in tongues he made sure the message was understood. When the Corinthians were doing it they were as sounding brass and a clanging symbol. If it is not understood it does not build the church which is the whole point. Even if I'm proclaiming in a true manifestation of the Spirit and don't understand what is being said it does not benefit even me. Now it's true that I am in the Spirit at the time but it defeats the purpose of tongues to speak in a language that no one understands, even the speaker.

k, lets do it

We will, just give me a little time.

It is the evidence of the INTERNAL work of the Spirit upon the heart of a changed believer.

The Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer produces both manifestations of grace internal and external. There is no premium put on one manifestation over the other, what all believers manifest are the fruit of the spirit. I'm going to throw in this visual image I used in a formal debate even though it's not really on topic. Notice that the wheels are opposed to one another, we can get more into this when we get into the Ministry of the Holy Spirit.

My point was that I was agreeing that many of my theological brothers emphasize the external manifestations of the Spirit and neglect the gifts, and that I believe it should be equally as important . . . gifts and fruit.

Indeed

Well, that would be better then emphasizing the gifts and neglecting the fruits. Of course they are both important since they are two parts of the same thing, the Holy Spirit of promise working both within and without.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

If anyone on this thread believes that receiving the gift of tongues is God's will for them, and is actively seeking it without success, PM me and I may be able to assist you.

In previous times when I have offered assistance on the public thread, it has caused unnecessary debates and confusion which have messed things up for genuine seekers.

 

[Benedictiō]

i believe there is a gift of tongues. That being said, i find it hard to believe that it is only revealed in certain churches, and that it is present in most of its membership.

 

[zeke37]

If anyone on this thread believes that receiving the gift of tongues is God's will for them, and is actively seeking it without success, PM me and I may be able to assist you.

In previous times when I have offered assistance on the public thread, it has caused unnecessary debates and confusion which have messed things up for genuine seekers.

I would hope to offer the searcher an alternative meaning for the tongue(s) of 1Cor14....than ecstatic/charismatic utterings.

I am available for a PM aswell...

 

[zeke37]

C'mon now Zeke . . . this is just weak!

Of course the Testament of Job is not Scripture, I have emphasized over and again that it is not authoritative to formulate doctrine, sheesh!

And it is dated to be AT LEAST in the era of contemporaneous to 1st Cent Palestine.



You dont need to and that is NOT what I was saying . . . .:o

I am sorry . . . it really seems that you are having a hard time thinking critically enough to get what I am saying (no offense brother, seriously) . . . it seems that sometimes certain things cannot be done by certain people . . .

I will try one last time

The Testament of Job is not scripture, so to use it to formulate biblical doctrine exclusively IS ERROR. Same page with me right?

However, one of the primary concepts in hermeneutics (correct interpretation) is that of HISTORICAL USAGE and CULTURAL USAGE concerning both TERMS (words) and CONCEPTS. Still same page?

This is because we need to know both, what the context of usage is for authors in HISTORICAL usage of terms AND for the READERS in historical understanding and CULTURAL USAGE.

IE I say "bat" . . . to us, due to baseball, we can interpret 2 things, a nocturnal animal, or a stick used to hit a ball in a game.

BUT, say we are in 15th cent england and I say "bat" because baseball does not exist (i think) MY WORD CANNOT MEAN THAT BECAUSE THAT MEANING WAS NOT YET HISTORICALLY NOR CULTURALLY UNDERSTOOD. However, whatever meanings that ARE viable COULD be understood with my saying "bat." Following me?

THEREFORE, historically, we see the usage of glossa and dialektos as ENCOMPASSING and INCLUDING the concept of ecstatic unintelligible speech by the testament of job in that:

1. It is written in Greek
2. It is contemporaneous to the time we are speaking of (1st cent Palestinian/Medditeranian Judeo/Christian era)

AND, culturally, we see that is was within the corpus of texts that made up the religious theological views of the same people group we are speaking of.


ERGO: HISTORICALLY AND CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY THE WORDS GLOSSA AND DIALEKTOS HAVE WITHIN THEIR ACCEPTED MEANING THE CONCEPTS OF ECSTATIC UNINTELLIGIBLE SPEECH.

To concede this as fact, when it is indeed fact, does NOT REQUIRE YOU TO SAY THAT THE BIBLE SPEAKS OF THIS!

All it does is lay the ground work and context of the words . . .

Now if you cannot follow me here (or will not) . . . then I really am at a loss . . .

well, a few points....

what the girls did, is not what your practise does,
I believe they understood what they were saying,
even if it was called ecstatic,. They spoke named dialects of angels

the meaning of ecstatic back then, may not be the same as today.

there was a long time period between 1Cor14 and Test of Job,
tradition or changing grammar have to be considered.

but as I said, even if I concede the point,
it would not change the facts of the scripture,
which repeatedly teaches the same subject,
and it is not ecstatic tognues.

ecstatic is not mentioned in 1Cor14

Paul is not speaking of the same thing that happened in either the testiment of Job or the Book of Acts

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

i believe there is a gift of tongues. That being said, i find it hard to believe that it is only revealed in certain churches, and that it is present in most of its membership.

I think that it is because many Christians believe that the gift ceased after the last Apostle died, and others who may believe that the gift is still available to day do not accept that the present expression of it in Pentecostal churches is genuine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The notion of "ecstatic" tongues is not contained in Scripture. There is no mention of it in any of the references that mention tongues. There is a danger of reading into Scripture that is not there.

"Ecstatic" tongues is a concept that if it was not coined, it was advanced by William Barclay, a very influential Bible commentator who wrote a commentary series in the 1960s. The suggestion taken was that a believer had to be in a very heightened emotional state before being able to speak in tongues. This is supported by the accounts of some early Pentecostal believers who reported that tongues came to them when they became highly charged in their emotions during very passionate and frenetic camp meetings. Hence the belief that extreme emotion and tongues were linked,

But when we carefully read the Scripture, we see now evidence of highly charged emotions in the environments when people started to speak in tongues.

On the Day of Pentecost, the 120 gathered together were waiting. They had been waiting quite a while not knowing what was going to happen to them. There was no sense that their emotions were charged up before the phenomenon happened; but they certainly got quite joyful afterward to the extent that observers thought they were drunk. I can imagine that they might have been praying normal prayers, and when the Spirit arrived, they suddenly found themselves speaking languages they had never learned. I believe that they thought they were speaking some kind of mystical language before it became apparent that they were speaking languages that the different pilgrims in Jerusalem could understand. What these pilgrims heard were the 120 praising and glorifying God in their own languages. But the 120 themselves were not aware that they were speaking languages that could be understood. To say that the 120 knew the languages they were speaking is reading something into the Pentecost account that simply is not there.

In the Samaritan example, the listeners were merely hearing what Peter had to say to them without any report of being hyped up in any way, and when they opened their mouths to praise God, because the Holy Spirit came upon them and filled them with love and joy and they wanted to give expression to it, instead of their native language, they spoke in other languages quite unexpectedly. Whether they were languages to be understood, the account does not say. Logically, if these believers were praising God in any language understood by them or Peter, Luke would not have reported anything other than they were just praising the Lord. He would not have made any comparison between the tongues of Pentecost and these languages.

At the time when Paul when to Ephesus, he knew all about the gift of tongues, because he probably was speaking it himself. There is no mention of extreme emotions when he laid hands on the believers and they spoke in tongues. If they had spoken in any of the languages Paul understood, he would have just said that they were praising the Lord, but not speaking in tongues.

You know, we don't leave our brains behind when we study Scripture.

In the Corinthian teaching, it is more likely that some Corinthian believers did get hyped up and were babbling in tongues all over the place. Paul gave them instructions and teaching to stop them doing that. Therefore, it is clear that if Paul entered some of our contemporary Pentecostal churches and saw the extreme emotions and uncontrolled tongues speaking, he would whip out a copy of 1Corinthians 14 and use it to teach them the right way of exercising the gift.

In the Corinthian teaching, he says quite clearly that the primary use of tongues is in the private prayer room alone with God. He says that the languages are unknown to humans, and that God is the only one who understands them. He says that if a person speaks out loud in tongues during a church meeting, it must be interpreted, otherwise the speaking in tongues is a waste of time and effort - speaking to the air - that the person talking and the people listening might as well be barbarians to each other.

I am starting to believe that the censure in Revelation about adding to Scripture includes people giving shonky interpretations to the clear, literal teaching that Paul gave, reading into Paul's words things he never meant.

To fully understand what tongues is all about, we need to re-read 1 Corinthians 14 without the influences of Pentecostalist, and Anti-Pentecostalist commentary, which would adulterate and prejudice our view of it.

For some people that can be too difficult, because their minds and attitudes are too infused with views that have come from teaching during their formative years which are very difficult to root out. To see this, all you have to see how the Jews of Jesus' time could not believe that He was the true Messiah because they were too indoctrinated that He had to come with pomp and splendour, defeating the Romans and setting up His kingdom in Israel, taking back the throne of David, along with a tremendous sign in the sky denoting that he was the true Messiah. They did not expect their King to be born in a stable, live an ordinary life as a carpenter, be a homeless transient and then to die the shameful death of the lowest criminal. This is why they could not believe in Jesus. They were too committed to the belief that there had to be a sign in the sky and they were too busy looking for it to see the miracles of Jesus, such as the stilling of a storm with one word, and raising the dead, without prejudice. This explains the passionate opposition to Christianity at that time. Even Paul himself was indoctrinated, so much that even the powerful testimony of Stephen could not change his view, and it took a personal appearance by Jesus on the road to Damascus to snap him out of it.

This is why I think that some are so indoctrinated either against the gift of tongues, or with a set of shonky teachings about it, that they cannot see the literal Scripture with clear eyes, and it is not much good engaging with these people because they will never see it by persuasion. The only way they will see the truth about tongues is by a direct revelation from God.

I apologise for the long post, but I need to make some points clear.

 

[ARBITER01]

This is why I think that some are so indoctrinated either against the gift of tongues, or with a set of shonky teachings about it, that they cannot see the literal Scripture with clear eyes, and it is not much good engaging with these people because they will never see it by persuasion. The only way they will see the truth about tongues is by a direct revelation from God.

Exactly.

There are some things in our Christian walk that a person has become either so deceived about, or somehow hateful towards, that GOD has to be the one who breaks the lie out of their life about. Without HIM doing it, they will only be deceived more. If they want to believe the lie over GOD's truth, HE will allow it, and even further their waywardness.

 

[zeke37]

The notion of "ecstatic" tongues is not contained in Scripture. There is no mention of it in any of the references that mention tongues. There is a danger of reading into Scripture that is not there.

personally, I agree...but Mat does not.

This is why I think that some are so indoctrinated either against the gift of tongues, or with a set of shonky teachings about it, that they cannot see the literal Scripture with clear eyes, and it is not much good engaging with these people because they will never see it by persuasion. The only way they will see the truth about tongues is by a direct revelation from God.

I apologise for the long post, but I need to make some points clear.

Exactly.

There are some things in our Christian walk that a person has become either so deceived about, or somehow hateful towards, that GOD has to be the one who breaks the lie out of their life about. Without HIM doing it, they will only be deceived more. If they want to believe the lie over GOD's truth, HE will allow it, and even further their waywardness.

these points could be and are made right back at those in your practice.
every thing you guys say about tongues is pure tradition