speaking in tongues

[tturt]

This forum is only for posters who believe in the manifestation of spiritual gifts and they're for today. Per forum rules.

DK of a scripture to support this but there are differences when a gift of tongues with interpretation and prayer language is spoken in church One thing there's a hush that comes over the congregation when it's a gift of tongues with interpretation.. This was noted in Marie Wwodworth Etters diary also.

Additionally when an interpretation is expected and a believer hasn't received the interpretation previously, sometimes it can be difficult for them to say it.

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

I speak in tongues and I also interpret them. So if someone starts going off in the middle of a service and I have nothing to say to interpret, then their 'tongues' aren't from God.

 

[tturt]

or it could be God giving another believer the interpretation .

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

or it could be God is giving another believer the interpretation .

True. But why aren't they interpreting it then? (Hypothetically)

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

Anyway, there's a difference. A distinction is made by Paul when he talks about those speaking in tongues as in communion to God and those speaking for a revelation to the others be made manifest.

 

[tturt]

When just beginning with this spiritual gift, some may be wanting to be absolutely sure that what they're saying is accurate. So they're asking Him

 

[( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)]

"It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken. Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and therefore speak,"

(according to their proportion)

 

[Carl Emerson]

Personally I don't see the church as a place for speaking one's private prayer language except possibly when quietly ministering to someones need as an intercessory tool.

 

[tturt]

Tongues are a sign - To unbelievers By believers "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:" "And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...they shall speak with new tongues; (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17)

 

[Carl Emerson]

Tongues are a sign - To unbelievers By believers "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:" "And these signs shall follow them that believe; ...they shall speak with new tongues; (I Cor 14:22 and Mark 16:17)

I assume you mean interpreted tongues?

Or do you mean a message for a foreign language speaker in his/her own tongue?

Or possibly both...

I still believe Paul spoke against private prayer languages uninterpreted in church.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Additionally when an interpretation is expected and a believer hasn't received the interpretation previously, sometimes it can be difficult for them to say it.

I am used to hearing the interpretation from another.

An uninterpreted tongue can be due to a second person with the interpretation failing to bring it.

 

[Francis Drake]

True. But why aren't they interpreting it then? (Hypothetically)

That question could be asked of any of the gifts, why don't people move in them.

Often that's down to intimidation from the church system that makes using the gifts feel quite threatening.

 

[Francis Drake]

Personally I don't see the church as a place for speaking one's private prayer language except possibly when quietly ministering to someones need as an intercessory tool.

When the church is in collective worship, uninterpreted tongues is entirely appropriate.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I now this is the modern approach but struggle to find biblical support for it.

It seems to be precisely what Paul spoke against.

I have a private tongue for intercession - Paul suggested this gift was not to be exercised in church because there would be no interpretation and others would not be edified...

 

[Francis Drake]

I now this is the modern approach but struggle to find biblical support for it.

Sorry Carl, but unless you've been in an early church meeting, you don't know 'this is the modern approach"

It seems to be precisely what Paul spoke against.

Paul spoke against using tongues to address the congregation without interpretation. He did not speak against tongues being used as a part of collective worship.

I have a private tongue for intercession - Paul suggested this gift was not to be exercised in church because there would be no interpretation and others would not be edified...

You've obviously never participated in collective worship in tongues, otherwise you wouldn't be so critical.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Incorrect - you judge me wrongly.

 

[Francis Drake]

Incorrect - you judge me wrongly.

I assume your reply is aimed at me.
If that's so, please tell me where I am incorrect otherwise your reply is meaningless.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You've obviously never participated in collective worship in tongues, otherwise you wouldn't be so critical.

This is the incorrect statement on two counts.

First you assume incorrectly about my worship history.

Second you suggest I am critical when I simply seek to weigh modern trends against the Scriptural record.

 

[Francis Drake]

This is the incorrect statement on two counts.

First you assume incorrectly about my worship history.

Second you suggest I am critical when I simply seek to weigh modern trends against the Scriptural record.

But you've just repeated the same thing, -assuming they way tongues is done is a modern trend.

 

[Carl Emerson]

But you've just repeated the same thing, -assuming they way tongues is done is a modern trend.

I our country such a practice was unknown in the 60's