The gift of Tongues

[swordsman1]

1CO 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels,

No that verse is not justification for men speaking the language of angels as I've already explained. Paul is using hyperbole to make a hypothetical statement. Please read my last couple of posts.

FYI and for 'whatever it's worth'..."in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" = in the spiritual realm = the heavenlies where God doth dwell. Works for me though it may not for you.

1CO 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Of course the languages spoken in Corinth were mysterious. With them not being translated nobody in the congregation understood them. If someone started speaking Swahili in your church their words would also be a mystery to you. Just because it is a "mystery" doesn't mean it is the language of angels.

That verse says nothing about tongues being a language of angels or heaven. Angels or heaven are not mentioned. If you a relying on the word 'unknown' to support your view that tongues are angelic you are on a very sticky wicket. The word 'unknown' does not appear in the original greek. It was inserted by the KJV translators. No modern translation of that verse has the word 'unknown'.

You really do only see what you want, don't you? READ that post again; "my testimony AND BIBLICAL SUPPORT"....uhhh that means 'SCRIPTURE' IMO.

So where is your biblical support for tongues being the language of heaven or angels?

 

[roasthawg]

According to Acts 2 in the Pentecost, it is being able to fluently speak in another Earth language you know nothing or only little about as enabled by the Holy Spirit.

In this case, someone from your audience would understand what you're speaking in his or her native language.

The thing you mostly see in churches that's nothing but babbling and nobody could understand is a blasphemy of the Word.

If this is the case then why did Paul teach to only speak in tongues if an interpreter is present to translate? Clearly there were some cases of early church members who were speaking in tongues with no one there to translate.

As I don't think the bible gives an explanation as to why most of us don't see these supernatural gifts in action today, the best explanation I've heard is that these gifts were needed before the gospel was available. Not saying that these gifts aren't manifested anymore, just that I have never personally seen anything which I believe to be credible and supernatural from the holy spirit.

 

[Hillsage]

No that verse is not justification for men speaking the language of angels as I've already explained. Paul is using hyperbole to make a hypothetical statement. Please read my last couple of posts.

Again YOUR OPINION. Paul isn't saying this is hyperbole in that sentence, you are, and since I speak in a tongues of man AND my spirit then I have no problem believing that 'spirit' tongue is also like the tongue of angels.

That verse says nothing about tongues being a language of angels or heaven. Angels or heaven are not mentioned. If you a relying on the word 'unknown' to support your view that tongues are angelic you are on a very sticky wicket. The word 'unknown' does not appear in the original greek. It was inserted by the KJV translators. No modern translation of that verse has the word 'unknown'.

1CO 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man/oudeis understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

3762 oudeis: not even one (man, woman or thing), i.e. none, nobody, nothing

OK then, let's drop the word "unknown" FROM THE BIBLE, I have no problem with that. Then put on our 'thinking caps' and read the bold. IOW, all your diatribe about foreign languages of men being spoken at Corinth is not the context because we're not talking about earthly languages of men. It it were that, then 'some man, woman or thing, somewhere' WOULD understand the language. Even the translators knew enough about what I'm saying to feel OK about ADDING the word UNKNOWN and yet you still can't see why.

So where is your biblical support for tongues being the language of heaven or angels?

Already told you, you just don't 'believe'....and you also do not 'have'...so you can't begin to 'relate' IMO. Whereas, I speak in a "tongue not unto men but onto GOD that no man understands" not even me. So that is my "BIBLE SUPPORT".

 

[swordsman1]

Again YOUR OPINION. Paul isn't saying this is hyperbole in that sentence, you are, and since I speak in a tongues of man AND my spirit then I have no problem believing that 'spirit' tongue is also like the tongue of angels.

No, it is not my opinion. It is what the bible says. You are not reading that verse in the context of the following 2 verses.

This verse forms one of 5 parallel statements to illustrate the importance of love over the spiritual gifts.

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.

Firstly Paul doesn't say he did any of those things. Each of them is an IF statement. He is saying that even if he did have those kinds of gifts, but not have love, they would be worthless.

Secondly it is quite obvious that in each of these statements Paul is using exaggerated figurative language:

Did Paul really have the gift of prophecy to such a degree that he literally knew ALL mysteries and ALL knowledge. ie was he omniscient? Obviously not.

Did Paul have the gift of faith to such a degree that he could literally move mountains? No.

Did Paul have the gift of giving to such a degree that he literally gave ALL his possessions to the poor. That would include his clothes. Did Paul walk around naked? No.

Did Paul literally give his own body to be burned? No.

And neither did he speak in the language of angels. He was speaking hypothetically, just like the other statements. None of those parallel statements are meant to be taken literally. What Paul is saying is that even if he possessed spiritual gifts to an impossibly superlative degree, but not have love, they would be worthless.

1CO 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man/oudeis understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

3762 oudeis: not even one (man, woman or thing), i.e. none, nobody, nothing

OK then, let's drop the word "unknown" FROM THE BIBLE, I have no problem with that. Then put on our 'thinking caps' and read the bold. IOW, all your diatribe about foreign languages of men being spoken at Corinth is not the context because we're not talking about earthly languages of men. It it were that, then 'some man, woman or thing, somewhere' WOULD understand the language. Even the translators knew enough about what I'm saying to feel OK about ADDING the word UNKNOWN and yet you still can't see why.

No Paul is not saying that nobody in the whole world could possibly understand the languages spoken. He is saying that nobody in the local church understands. The context of 1 Cor 14 is in the local church not the whole world:
1 Cor 14:5 "so that the church"
1 Cor 14:12 "for the edification of the church."
1 Cor 14:18 however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.
1 Cor 14:23 " Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?"
1 Cor 14:26 "When you assemble..."
1 Cor 14:28 "he must keep silent in the church"
1 Cor 14:34 " in the churches"

So it means: "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the church] understands"

Not: "For one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God; for no one [in the whole world could possibly] understand"

There is absolutely no precedent in scripture for tongues being the language of angels. Nowhere outside of 1 Cor 13:1 is it even mentioned.

 

[Hillsage]

1 Cor 14:23 " Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?"

All that you said makes sense to you for one reason IMO. You sound like an ungifted one in the church which Paul is speaking of. So to continue this fruitless bantering with you, reminds me of something a former pastor said; "A man convinced 'against his will' is always of the same OPINION still."

Be blessed.

 

[swordsman1]

All that you said makes sense to you for one reason IMO. You sound like an ungifted one in the church which Paul is speaking of."

Peace, brother.

 

[GDunn]

Except there is no biblical precedent for men speaking in the language of angels or heaven. Paul certainly didn't do it in 1 Cor 13. Like having the gift of faith to the degree of moving mountains, or the gift of prophecy to the degree of being omniscient, it is something that is purely hypothetical.

HE mentioned "tongues of ANGELS or men."

 

[Butch5]

They were carried along and "became another man." This is the ecstatic pentecostal meaning.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

This also means they didn't know what they were speaking in general. Even if it WAS a known language, the speaker did not know it. We know it was chaotic and "babble" to those who did not understand. How do we know? Peter said they weren't drunk is how we know. This is WHY Paul said if languages of men OR angels. Angels speak their own language. It's called angelalia. La, la, la laa;lafsgjgvb. (Just saying).

I agree that the speaker didn't know the language. I would submit that it wasn't babble, but rather people were hearing languages spoken that they did not know. When they found one who spoke their language they would understand. Regarding languages of angels, I don't know that the Scriptures address this issue.

 

[Butch5]

Your quoting the verse where it is The Holy Spirit speaking through men with one of the 9 Gifts of the Holy Spirit. That is different than when you speak in a tongue which comes from your spirit.

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

I pray and sing in unknown tongues which my unfruitful mind doesn't understand. But I also pray and sing in the English tongue which my mind does understand.

EPH 5:19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,

psalms are songs inspired by God in the bible
hymms are songs inspired by men in the church
spiritual songs are inspired by our spirit in us.

All of the speaking in tongues came from the Holy Spirit. When you say "my spirit" what do you mean?

 

[Hillsage]

All of the speaking in tongues came from the Holy Spirit.

What are you talking in reference to here? I ask because 1Cor 14:14, 15 plainly disagrees IMO?

When you say "my spirit" what do you mean?

When I say "my spirit" I am directly quoting scripture. So I "mean" just what the scripture says. The main problem I think, is that most don't know that there are two sources of supernatural tongues. One is from the Holy Spirit speaking through us and the other is our spirit praying/speaking through us.

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.
15 What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the spirit and I will sing with the mind also.

I know that you can't always trust the capitalization of Holy or Spirit, which makes it indicative of God's Spirit, but note that both times in these two verses we are not even talking about a capitalized Spirit of God, we're talking about the spirit of a man/Paul in reference to praying in a tongue.

I hope this helps clarify things for you.

 

[Imagican]

If this is the case then why did Paul teach to only speak in tongues if an interpreter is present to translate? Clearly there were some cases of early church members who were speaking in tongues with no one there to translate.

As I don't think the bible gives an explanation as to why most of us don't see these supernatural gifts in action today, the best explanation I've heard is that these gifts were needed before the gospel was available. Not saying that these gifts aren't manifested anymore, just that I have never personally seen anything which I believe to be credible and supernatural from the holy spirit.

Actually, the Bible does give us explanation.

Paul states that where there are tongues, they shall CEASE. Then he goes on to give us detail.

He says that when he was a child HE SPOKE AS A CHILD, (get it? SPOKE as a CHILD), but when he became a man, he put away those CHILDISH THINGS.

Then gets even deeper. He offers that:

Now we see through a glass darkly, (in reference to a lack of understanding or knowledge), but then, face to face, (as in KNOWING God through His Son), we will KNOW as we are already KNOWN, (God has known us since the beginning. But when we GROW up and become MEN in Christ, we will KNOW both Father and Son as we are already KNOWN).

I know. Most don't GET IT. But the words and understanding are there for those that DO.

Tongues were 'for a sign'. Not to THEM THAT BELIEVE, but to them that BELIEVE NOT. The words are pretty clear. And gibberish certainly wouldn't be THAT sign.

But what IS that 'sign', (or way at the time), was the ability of men who had never learned other languages to communicate with people of different languages the GOOD NEWS.

Tongues, in every use in the Bible is in reference to LANGUAGES. The gibberish that some insist are tongues are NOT languages. Merely NOISES. And it is apparent in the manner that they will go to to justify their use of these noises that it has nothing to do with edification of the Body. They practice these things because of how it makes them FEEL. It is utterly sensual without any benefit to the Body.

Which begs the question: Does the holy spirit truly dwell within a group of those that practice in contradiction to the TRUTH?

Having studied the occult and cultures that practice arts such as Voodoo, it is apparent that somehow some of these practices have been introduced into certain 'denominations' of those professing to worship Christ.

If you study the introduction of 'tongues' into the modern 'churches', you find the answer to what it truly is.

Our 'modern tongues' movement is little over 100 years old. So if they are correct in their interpretation of the use of tongues, that means that they CEASED for about 1800 years and then, for some reason, CAME BACK.

But what about the other 1800 years? Can we REALLY believe that the Holy Spirit abandoned mankind for 1800 years and then the Holy Spirit reestablished them in a select group of hillbillies?

It's kind of funny. Those that speak in tongues don't believe in handling snakes or drinking poison to prove their faith. WHY NOT. If these signs shall follow them that believe, whey aren't they exhibiting ALL the signs?

And understand this: the majority of 'Christianity' looks upon tongues the same way that those who speak in tongues looks upon them that handle snakes and drink poison. And for the SAME REASON.

And that reason is that they understand that the Bible does NOT encourage us to drink poison or handle snakes or make gibberish sounds and call it 'tongues of angels.

Mark was not trying to indicate that men should drink poison to prove their faith. What he was offering was that God is capable of protecting His faithful from such things WHEN IT MATTERS.

But I can assure you that there have been many faithful servants of God that have DIED from snake bites and being poisoned. And the gibberish that many practice in the 'churches' are NOT 'languages'. Just noises that they have learned from others making the same noise.

Speaking in gibberish is a LEARNED behavior. And being such, obviously isn't offered as 'The Spirit gives utterance'. People speak in gibberish by their OWN will.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

1CO 14:14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful.

Think about it. if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is UNFRUITFUL.

If we take what the Bible offers concerning 'the production of fruit' by one's actions, I would say that this line is offering that praying in a tongue is UNFRUITFUL. The spirit prays but the MIND is UNFRUITFUL.
That sounds like it's saying that if one prays without the mind being fruitful, it's USELESS prayer. Why would it offer these words if they don't mean what they indicate? Why SAY that the mind is UNFRUITFUL? So if there is nothing offered that's FRUITFUL, what is the purpose to begin with?

So we judge a man according to the fruit of the spirit that he produces or exhibits. Yet this says that the mind of one praying is UNFRUITFUL. How can it be so difficult to understand that if the praying in tongues was legitimate then the mind of one praying in such a manner WOULD BE FRUITFUL. The praying would bring about positive FRUIT. It certainly would leave one's MIND fruitless.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Shane658]

Tongues is not gibberish, that people practice in churches today.
A known tongue is a language known to the people present that can be understood
I.e. Communicating in English to an English Crowd present, if you speak in English to a crowd who only understand Spanish and there is no interpreter present then you are speaking in an unknown tongue(unknown language) and should not speak to men and should speak to God for no man understands you.
An Unkown tongue is a Language not understood by the people present.
For those that say that Paul Spoke in an angelic language.You are not understanding what is being said in the verse and an angelic language is not gibberish. An Angel is a messenger of God, ask your self according to the bible what language did angels speak to people.The answer is, what ever language the person knew.Go back to any point in the bible where an angel communicated with a person it was with a human language.If you want to know what specific language it was just study more on the person who was spoken to and and their region in the biblical days.
The verse is the Following: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.
The verse is hypothetical. Replace the word "Though" with "if" and "Tongues" with "Languages" and read the whole verse. He is making a point to have "charity". Read the following verses after and you will see that he is speaking hypothetical.Here are the following verses:
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing
Do not stop reading after the comma, the sentence does not conclude after the comma continue to read in context.Continue to read the next verses will give you a better understanding on his point of having Charity/love.

 

[zippy2]

For it is indeed: offensive to me. Those times I've encountered it I LEFT THE ROOM. It made me THAT uncomfortable.

I have had the same experience. It is good to know I am not the only one. Thank you.

 

[Hillsage]

I have had the same experience. It is good to know I am not the only one. Thank you.

Fear loves company just as faith loves company. And those who are "ignorant" experientially concerning the spiritual or supernatural will most certainly fall on the 'fear/run and teach against' side of the issue. That's why Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth concerning this very issue;

1CO 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

The point being, that if your pastor missed Paul's letter being read that day, he was an ignorant Christian who could easily end up teaching ignorant doctrine concerning spiritual gifts/tongues. The same thing obviously holds true in the church today.

1CO 14:22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers (charismatics) but for unbelievers (non Christians), while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

Not a 'sign' to us Charismatic "believers" because we understand them better (not perfect) than those who actually fight "ignorantly" against them. But in this verse 'above' Paul is only dealing with two groups of people, 'immature' Charismatic Christian/believers and 'non Christians'/unbelievers.

But in the very next verse he includes another group where "signs" doesn't even apply....this would be the one whose pastor missed Paul's letter and is "ignorant". And that group of "outsiders/unlearned" ones is simply....'in today's terms'...the fundamentalist who walked in to a Charismatic/Pentecostal meeting.

23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders/unlearned/idiotes or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Now scripture doesn't say you 'outsiders/unlearned ones/idiotes' out there are non Christians. No he just says you fall into a category of being unbelieving believers in this doctrine/experience. But I think the actual GREEK definition says it most plainly. Please don't take offense....at 'the Word'.

2399 idiotes: a private person, i.e. (by impl.) an ignoramus (comp. "idiot")

I think Paul used this harsh word for any professing "Christian" who would call another "Christian" all the things, like we hear said about us here, by 'unbelieving believers' in Christ. The only thing they could add to their "babble and gibberish" description against the 'spiritual gift' in us would be to just say "you are mad". But they're 'smart' enough to not finish that verse. Go figure.

 

[Shane658]

Fear loves company just as faith loves company. And those who are "ignorant" experientially concerning the spiritual or supernatural will most certainly fall on the 'fear/run and teach against' side of the issue. That's why Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth concerning this very issue;

1CO 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

The point being, that if your pastor missed Paul's letter being read that day, he was an ignorant Christian who could easily end up teaching ignorant doctrine concerning spiritual gifts/tongues. The same thing obviously holds true in the church today.

1CO 14:22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers (charismatics) but for unbelievers (non Christians), while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

Not a 'sign' to us Charismatic "believers" because we understand them better (not perfect) than those who actually fight "ignorantly" against them. But in this verse 'above' Paul is only dealing with two groups of people, 'immature' Charismatic Christian/believers and 'non Christians'/unbelievers.

But in the very next verse he includes another group where "signs" doesn't even apply....this would be the one whose pastor missed Paul's letter and is "ignorant". And that group of "outsiders/unlearned" ones is simply....'in today's terms'...the fundamentalist who walked in to a Charismatic/Pentecostal meeting.

23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders/unlearned/idiotes or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Now scripture doesn't say you 'outsiders/unlearned ones/idiotes' out there are non Christians. No he just says you fall into a category of being unbelieving believers in this doctrine/experience. But I think the actual GREEK definition says it most plainly. Please don't take offense....at 'the Word'.

2399 idiotes: a private person, i.e. (by impl.) an ignoramus (comp. "idiot")

I think Paul used this harsh word for any professing "Christian" who would call another "Christian" all the things, like we hear said about us here, by 'unbelieving believers' in Christ. The only thing they could add to their "babble and gibberish" description against the 'spiritual gift' in us would be to just say "you are mad". But they're 'smart' enough to not finish that verse. Go figure.

If i am understanding what you wrote correctly, you are saying that those, like myself who do not believe the spiritual gift of tongues is occurring today and call it Gibberish and babbling which the Pentecostal and charismatics practice fall in unbelieving believers in Christ?Therefore we should embrace what goes on in those movements?

 

[swordsman1]

The point being, that if your pastor missed Paul's letter being read that day, he was an ignorant Christian who could easily end up teaching ignorant doctrine concerning spiritual gifts/tongues. The same thing obviously holds true in the church today.

The real ignorant teachers are those who have been encouraging millions of beleivers to seek a fleshly phenomenon and then deceiving them into thinking it is the language of angels and they are speaking the tongues of the New Testament, when there isn't an ounce of biblical justification for it. And if they can't/don't/won't then they are 2nd class Christians.

1CO 14:22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers (charismatics) but for unbelievers (non Christians), while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

Ah, so the word 'believe' in the bible means to be charismatic?.....

"All things are possible to him who is charismatic"

"But as I told you, you have seen me and still you are not charismatic ."

"Jesus said to Jairus, “Don’t be afraid; just be charismatic, and she will be healed.”

"Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and be a charismatic."

"Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not become charismatic."

"if a woman has a husband who is not a charismatic and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him."

"So Abraham was charismatic and it was credited to him as righteousness"

"Very truly I tell you, the one who is charismatic has eternal life."

I knew I was missing something. Looks like us ignorant 2nd class idiotes are doomed then, together with the millions who lived before the charismatic movement began a few decades ago.

Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of fun.

 

[Neochristian]

Based on my understanding and experience, and a similar passage I found in Plato, talking in tongues is doing philosophy, in the most general sense. Ya know how you can speak faster than you can type? It is understanding faster than you can speak. So when you try to express it in words, it gets all jumbled up. Important insights and examples, etc that you are remembering semi-consciously are being left out of what you are sharing verbally, and so only a few people can interpret what you are saying.

 

[Hillsage]

If i am understanding what you wrote correctly, you are saying that those, like myself who do not believe the spiritual gift of tongues is occurring today and call it Gibberish and babbling which the Pentecostal and charismatics practice fall in unbelieving believers in Christ?Therefore we should embrace what goes on in those movements?

No, you shouldn't embrace all of it. I DON"T EMBRACE all of it. But 'you' should 'do it right' and not just throw the 'truth'... or, the baby with the bathwater. We, or at least I, admit not having or doing the 'Charismatic' thing perfectly. But when those who don't 'do it at all', then want to judge and criticize they better be ready to receive a teaching like this and respond to the teaching. Otherwise you're shooting the messenger and ignoring the message...from the bible. That's all I'm saying. And I know the 'message' I wrote might hurt...and probably just as bad as having "unlearned/ungifted/idiotes" believers telling me that my prayer language is "gibberish and babble" plus a number of other things.

I guess I'm just not letting 'what is good to 'me' be spoken of as evil.' I hope you understand where I'm coming from Shane, I'm not wanting to offend but I understand why one would be taken.

ROM 14:16 Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil;

 

[Imagican]

Fear loves company just as faith loves company. And those who are "ignorant" experientially concerning the spiritual or supernatural will most certainly fall on the 'fear/run and teach against' side of the issue. That's why Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth concerning this very issue;

1CO 12:1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.

The point being, that if your pastor missed Paul's letter being read that day, he was an ignorant Christian who could easily end up teaching ignorant doctrine concerning spiritual gifts/tongues. The same thing obviously holds true in the church today.

1CO 14:22 Thus, tongues are a sign not for believers (charismatics) but for unbelievers (non Christians), while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers.

Not a 'sign' to us Charismatic "believers" because we understand them better (not perfect) than those who actually fight "ignorantly" against them. But in this verse 'above' Paul is only dealing with two groups of people, 'immature' Charismatic Christian/believers and 'non Christians'/unbelievers.

But in the very next verse he includes another group where "signs" doesn't even apply....this would be the one whose pastor missed Paul's letter and is "ignorant". And that group of "outsiders/unlearned" ones is simply....'in today's terms'...the fundamentalist who walked in to a Charismatic/Pentecostal meeting.

23 If, therefore, the whole church assembles and all speak in tongues, and outsiders/unlearned/idiotes or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

Now scripture doesn't say you 'outsiders/unlearned ones/idiotes' out there are non Christians. No he just says you fall into a category of being unbelieving believers in this doctrine/experience. But I think the actual GREEK definition says it most plainly. Please don't take offense....at 'the Word'.

2399 idiotes: a private person, i.e. (by impl.) an ignoramus (comp. "idiot")

I think Paul used this harsh word for any professing "Christian" who would call another "Christian" all the things, like we hear said about us here, by 'unbelieving believers' in Christ. The only thing they could add to their "babble and gibberish" description against the 'spiritual gift' in us would be to just say "you are mad". But they're 'smart' enough to not finish that verse. Go figure.

So you believe that a group of believers should practice something that if a non believer were to witness it would think you were MAD? You REALLY think that this is the manner in which The Holy Spirit would seek converts? By a non believer thinking that you are MAD? You do know what the word "MAD" means, right? It means "NUTS", "CRAZY", "INSANE", "LUNATICS". Well, that doesn't make any sense at all.

No, what Paul is offering is that they should cease doing that which is contrary to the Spirit. Quit chasing after PERSONAL edification and focus on the BODY and that which brings edification to ALL. How do you suppose that you can bring edification to someone that thinks you are 'NUTS'?

And it is absolutely amazing that you would go through all the effort you do to take scripture out of context. You 'attempt' to take Paul's words and add an exact OPPOSITE meaning to them. He is CLEARLY telling the 'church' at Corinth to GROW up and STOP seeking their OWN glory. He SAYS IT as clearly as possible.

Chapter 12. The ENTIRE chapter is devoted to an emphasis on edification of the BODY. Paul is pointing out that SELF EDIFICATION is NOT to be preferred. And at the end of the chapter, he STATES to seek the BEST gifts. Tongues and interpretation are the LAST on the list.

Then he states, YET I SHOW YOU A BETTER WAY. And that better way is the ENTIRE next chapter. He says that there is not ANYTHING we can DO, that done without charity means ANYTHING. Speaking in gibberish that isn't even understood certainly doesn't deal with CHARITY. The person speaking the gibberish doesn't even KNOW what they are saying. As far as they know they are asking God to drop the ceiling on themselves. So they certainly are ACTING in a charitable manner. So that means that without 'charity', it is USELESS.

He states that when HE WAS A CHILD, (this is OBVIOUSLY in reference to his spirituality), he SPOKE as a CHILD. But when he became a MAN, (grew UP in Christ so far as learning to share His love), he put away such childish things.

It is perfectly clear that the letter Paul sent to them was a letter of REBUKE. When he received message that the 'church' in Corinth was reverting back to their previous pagan ways, it pained him to the point that he wrote them a letter like NO OTHER. For no other epistle is as harsh as the two written to the Corinthians. At one point he even asks them if he needs to bring a ROD when he returns. A ROD was used to BEAT people with. A means of offering CORRECTION PHYSICALLY.

And then there are these words that are often completely ignored by those that insist that they are speaking in tongues when they speak gibberish:

1 Corinthians 14:19
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.

WOW. FIVE words of understanding verses 10,000 in an unknown tongue. That's like saying that speaking in tongues is only 1/2000th as important as speaking words that are UNDERSTANDABLE. If that isn't basically stating that so far as The Spirit is concerned, speaking in gibberish is USELESS, I don't know how much more clearly he could have spoken.

Blessings,

MEC