Tongues..a sign.

[Biblicist]

It would be helpful if you explained the meaning of the word 'Salvific'

The term Salvific speaks of our Salvation particularly when we were initially Saved. So a Salvific event equals a Salvation event.

 

[Righttruth]

The term Salvific speaks of our Salvation particularly when we were initially Saved. So a Salvific event equals a Salvation event.

This is reading too much into what is not connected.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I believe that when Paul says diverse tongue is a spiritual gift, it amounts to a situation that a person speaks in German (who is a French) in an English congregation and that is being interpreted in English by another person which has the gift of interpretation. Whereas an unknown tongue is not basically a spiritual gift, but Paul wishes that it could be interpreted if possible. This is a shady area because many interpretations have been noticed for the same unknown tongue.

In the experience of many people in congregations where tongues messages have been given, there have been times when a person has spoken an understandable language (it has happened twice in my direct experience) and either the person understanding the language has received it as a personal word of encouragement from the Lord, or when an interpretation has been given, a bilingual person has fully acknowledged that the interpretation has been true to the language spoken.

There have also been times when an evangelist has had to speak to foreigners and the Lord has given him their language through a miracle to give them the gospel in their own language although he had never learned it. One example was an American given Italian to speak and after the even, she continued to know and speak the Italian language. So God is not limited in how He can use tongues to get His love message across to people.

Where there is a tongues message and a number of interpretations, I can explain it by saying that the tongues could have been an intercession for the prophetic word to come forth, and the interpretations have actually been prophecies that have been triggered by the Holy Spirit's response to the intercession.

I have nothing to say on this, that is, something personal. But you see, Christianity represents cross, that is, both horizontal and vertical fellowship. That is our fellowship with God (vertical) and also with others(horizontal).

Paul expressed his fellowship with God when he said that he prayed with his spirit and with his understanding; and sang with his spirit and with his understanding. He did not actually mention that he did this in any public meetings, but implied that this was part of his private fellowship with God.

I have had a strong Baptist background

After I left the Pentecostal movement (after 12 years of being in it) I went to an Anglican church for around 2 years, and then changed cities and went to a Baptist church where I was a deacon for four years. Then I shifted to my first school teaching job in another city and joined another Baptist church. When I got to Auckland, I wanted to just go to a church down the road and not to have to drive anywhere. The closest was a Presbyterian church and I found it to be a very loving family environment and not much different to the Baptist churches I attended. So I have been there since 1996, and now am the senior elder.

When I left the Pentecostal movement I decided to ditch Pentecostal practices and my mentors in it. The funny thing is that I couldn't stop praying in tongues. It kept flowing out of me. So I kept it. The interesting thing about the other churches I went to, they knew I had a Pentecostal background and they accepted me as part of their families nevertheless (I guess one factor is that I didn't push my background on them.) I am a subscriber to the "Third Wave" where the gifts of the Spirit can be introduced into traditional churches without them having to become "Charismatic" and have to change their original character. It is because the gifts of the Spirit are Bible and not exclusively Pentecostal or Charismatic. The problem has been that P/Cs have pressured traditional folks to change their theology and worship practice to be true Spirit-filled people. I do not support this. I believe that a liturgical Anglican, a traditional Baptist or Presbyterian can move in the gifts of the Spirit in a way that fits right in with how that church worships. If a Charismatic came into my church and tried to push his or her barrow, I would get that person aside and sort them out. I think I could do this right because I have experience in Pentecostal things and in traditional churches.

I am not inclined to accept his self-proclaimed status of apostleship. Jesus called him 'chosen instrument' appropriately since apostles cannot be more than 12. Even many Corinthians questioned this claim as can be seen in 1 Cor. 9:1. But that is a different story.

Paul says that he was appointed and called by Christ as an apostle when He encountered him on the Damascus Road. The Gentile churches accepted him as such. The Apostles in Jerusalem had their doubts about him until he went there and explained his mission to them and they then recognised that although they were the Apostles to the Jews, he was recognised as the apostle to the Gentiles.

Also, because the Church has accepted his letters as inspired scripture as part of the Canon of Scripture, then I accept his teaching as scripture. Without his letters, we would have a very limited understanding of what the Christian faith is all about and we would have little assurance of our standing with God in Christ.

Do you think God gives some inferior and some superior gifts?

No. The best gifts are the most useful and appropriate ones to be used in a particular situation, in the same way that a torque wrench is the best tool for a certain mechanical procedure. A crescent wrench might do the job but it is not the best tool for that job. So, prophecy may be the best gift for sharing the love of God to a person or congregation, but it is not the best gift for the personal prayer time. The gift of healing is the best gift to use for a sick person, but not for a fully healthy person. The gift of tongues may be the best gift to use in situations where the group needs a prod in the Spirit to release the gift of prophecy, but in the private prayer time, tongues with interpretation may not be the best one to use, so the personal prayer language would be better in that private environment.

But all gifts are equal in quality if they are used correctly for the task they were designed for.

So Paul says that private tongues without interpretation in a public church service is not as appropriate as prophecy, unless the tongue spoken is followed by an interpretation.

I had the experience when I gave an Abrahamic blessing over my 16 year old daughter at her baptism in an AOG church. I wanted just to prophesy, but when I opened my mouth, it was a tongues message. I was a bit embarrassed at first because my wife was right there and she had never heard me pray in tongues before. But then I gave the interpretation which was the prophecy. I believe that my tongues was to release the prophecy in me for her. I would not have done that in a Baptist or Presbyterian church. I would have prophesied and started it by saying, "If Jesus was here, He would say this to you..." etc.

Yes, gifts do not guarantee salvation, but the fruit of the Spirit does.

Correct. The fruit of the Spirit is evidence of being born again and given a new heart. Jesus being risen from the dead guarantees our salvation.

 

[Righttruth]

In the experience of many people in congregations where tongues messages have been given, there have been times when a person has spoken an understandable language (it has happened twice in my direct experience) and either the person understanding the language has received it as a personal word of encouragement from the Lord, or when an interpretation has been given, a bilingual person has fully acknowledged that the interpretation has been true to the language spoken.

A self-assessment of bilingual person cannot be accepted in its face value. The person's spirit's utterances need to be evaluated from other sources. We need a minimum of two independent witnesses or sources.

There have also been times when an evangelist has had to speak to foreigners and the Lord has given him their language through a miracle to give them the gospel in their own language although he had never learned it. One example was an American given Italian to speak and after the even, she continued to know and speak the Italian language. So God is not limited in how He can use tongues to get His love message across to people.

This is precisely a spiritual gift comparable to what happened on Pentecost.

Where there is a tongues message and a number of interpretations, I can explain it by saying that the tongues could have been an intercession for the prophetic word to come forth, and the interpretations have actually been prophecies that have been triggered by the Holy Spirit's response to the intercession.

Sorry, it is just a presumption. An extrapolation unsupported by the Bible.

Paul expressed his fellowship with God when he said that he prayed with his spirit and with his understanding; and sang with his spirit and with his understanding. He did not actually mention that he did this in any public meetings, but implied that this was part of his private fellowship with God.

Notice that he talking of his spirit, unrelated to the Holy Spirit.

After I left the Pentecostal movement (after 12 years of being in it) I went to an Anglican church for around 2 years, and then changed cities and went to a Baptist church where I was a deacon for four years. Then I shifted to my first school teaching job in another city and joined another Baptist church. When I got to Auckland, I wanted to just go to a church down the road and not to have to drive anywhere. The closest was a Presbyterian church and I found it to be a very loving family environment and not much different to the Baptist churches I attended. So I have been there since 1996, and now am the senior elder.

I began with a strong Baptist fellowship, followed by Brethren, partially, out of curiosity, JWs, attendance of several Pentecostal based churches at different places and finally a non-denominational church formed out of mainly Methodist background. As I had indicated earlier, none is perfect and each has its own merits. I had stopped going to church for a few years. Finally, I was prompted to keep fellowship with other believers as a part of a Christian life. I continue to speak for the truth and glorify Jesus despite the deviations I find in our church.

When I left the Pentecostal movement I decided to ditch Pentecostal practices and my mentors in it. The funny thing is that I couldn't stop praying in tongues. It kept flowing out of me. So I kept it. The interesting thing about the other churches I went to, they knew I had a Pentecostal background and they accepted me as part of their families nevertheless (I guess one factor is that I didn't push my background on them.) I am a subscriber to the "Third Wave" where the gifts of the Spirit can be introduced into traditional churches without them having to become "Charismatic" and have to change their original character. It is because the gifts of the Spirit are Bible and not exclusively Pentecostal or Charismatic. The problem has been that P/Cs have pressured traditional folks to change their theology and worship practice to be true Spirit-filled people. I do not support this. I believe that a liturgical Anglican, a traditional Baptist or Presbyterian can move in the gifts of the Spirit in a way that fits right in with how that church worships. If a Charismatic came into my church and tried to push his or her barrow, I would get that person aside and sort them out. I think I could do this right because I have experience in Pentecostal things and in traditional churches.

The major lacunae is the claim of unknown tongue as a spiritual gift.

Paul says that he was appointed and called by Christ as an apostle when He encountered him on the Damascus Road. The Gentile churches accepted him as such. The Apostles in Jerusalem had their doubts about him until he went there and explained his mission to them and they then recognised that although they were the Apostles to the Jews, he was recognised as the apostle to the Gentiles.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake."

The above verses contradict Paul's self-proclamations. Paul created the first division in Jerusalem Church. It never recognized Paul as an apostle, let alone a division of Gentiles' apostleship! Division is Satanic. Unfortunately, thousands of denominations have sprung up twisting Paul, considering piece-wise verses for convenient to weave comfortable concepts. He doesn't qualify to become an apostle as indicated by Peter to choose the replacement for Judas.

Also, because the Church has accepted his letters as inspired scripture as part of the Canon of Scripture, then I accept his teaching as scripture. Without his letters, we would have a very limited understanding of what the Christian faith is all about and we would have little assurance of our standing with God in Christ.

Sorry to say that canon is man-made. That is why we have different versions. He never knew the sublime essence of preaching of Jesus.

No. The best gifts are the most useful and appropriate ones to be used in a particular situation, in the same way that a torque wrench is the best tool for a certain mechanical procedure. A crescent wrench might do the job but it is not the best tool for that job. So, prophecy may be the best gift for sharing the love of God to a person or congregation, but it is not the best gift for the personal prayer time. The gift of healing is the best gift to use for a sick person, but not for a fully healthy person. The gift of tongues may be the best gift to use in situations where the group needs a prod in the Spirit to release the gift of prophecy, but in the private prayer time, tongues with interpretation may not be the best one to use, so the personal prayer language would be better in that private environment.But all gifts are equal in quality if they are used correctly for the task they were designed for.

But Paul is saying torque wrench is inferior and choose something better. Even prophecy need to be verified. As I have said before, personal prayer in not concern.

So Paul says that private tongues without interpretation in a public church service is not as appropriate as prophecy, unless the tongue spoken is followed by an interpretation.

A wishful thinking, not related to the Holy Spirit.

I had the experience when I gave an Abrahamic blessing over my 16 year old daughter at her baptism in an AOG church. I wanted just to prophesy, but when I opened my mouth, it was a tongues message. I was a bit embarrassed at first because my wife was right there and she had never heard me pray in tongues before. But then I gave the interpretation which was the prophecy. I believe that my tongues was to release the prophecy in me for her. I would not have done that in a Baptist or Presbyterian church. I would have prophesied and started it by saying, "If Jesus was here, He would say this to you..." etc.

Paul also recommend interpretation by the same person who speaks unknown tongue. If so, why speak in an unknown tongue in the first place?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

A self-assessment of bilingual person cannot be accepted in its face value. The person's spirit's utterances need to be evaluated from other sources. We need a minimum of two independent witnesses or sources.

I think it would be such an amazing event that a person reporting it would not lie about it, but would celebrate it before all. To prove it he could speak in his own dialect to show that what the person spoke in tongues was exactly the same language. That would be proof enough.

This is precisely a spiritual gift comparable to what happened on Pentecost.

Exactly, because the event at Pentecost was a one-off for a particular purpose. There is no indication that the other two events in Acts were the same. To say that these two were also understandable languages is arguing from silence.

Sorry, it is just a presumption. An extrapolation unsupported by the Bible.

Maybe, but I'm waiting for a better explanation.

Notice that he talking of his spirit, unrelated to the Holy Spirit.

True, but the ability to pray from his spirit originates from the Holy Spirit. It can't come from anywhere else. Also the context is concerning tongues because the chapter is all about tongues and prophecy. So he is not talking about prophecy when he says that he prays and sings with his spirit, therefore he is speaking about his prayers in tongues.

I began with a strong Baptist fellowship, followed by Brethren, partially, out of curiosity, JWs, attendance of several Pentecostal based churches at different places and finally a non-denominational church formed out of mainly Methodist background. As I had indicated earlier, none is perfect and each has its own merits. I had stopped going to church for a few years. Finally, I was prompted to keep fellowship with other believers as a part of a Christian life. I continue to speak for the truth and glorify Jesus despite the deviations I find in our church.

I appreciate knowing that.

The major lacunae is the claim of unknown tongue as a spiritual gift.

Well that is how Paul defines it along with interpretation in 1 Corinthians 12. He also defines "various tongues" as manifestations of the spirit, and so private tongues prayer fits into that.

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake."

The above verses contradict Paul's self-proclamations. Paul created the first division in Jerusalem Church. It never recognized Paul as an apostle, let alone a division of Gentiles' apostleship! Division is Satanic. Unfortunately, thousands of denominations have sprung up twisting Paul, considering piece-wise verses for convenient to weave comfortable concepts. He doesn't qualify to become an apostle as indicated by Peter to choose the replacement for Judas.

Where does it say that Paul created a division in the early church? I don't see that at all. He went to Jerusalem and put his case, told them of his experience on the Damascus Road, and the Apostles approved him. Peter, in his letter, showed his full approval of Paul. So I see your comment as a logical theory but nothing more. I don't see full, clear support for it in the Acts record or in Peter's letter.

Sorry to say that canon is man-made. That is why we have different versions. He never knew the sublime essence of preaching of Jesus.

Then cut Paul's letters out of your Bible, because you seem not to accept them as inspired New Testament scripture.

But Paul is saying torque wrench is inferior and choose something better. Even prophecy need to be verified. As I have said before, personal prayer in not concern.

Paul never said that tongues was inferior. All he said that speaking out in tongues without interpretation is not to be preferred. Teaching that tongues is inferior is another bit of raving from a mad monk. If Paul said he spoke in tongues more than them all and he would they all spoke in tongues, then how could he see it as inferior?

Paul also recommend interpretation by the same person who speaks unknown tongue. If so, why speak in an unknown tongue in the first place?

I have answered that before, and you would not believe it.

I think that you are the product of what you have been taught concerning the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit and the gift of tongues. I can understand that. My formative years were in Pentecostal churches where I received different teaching. Being a Calvinist I believe in the absolutely authority of Scripture including all of the New Testament. That means I believe that the letters of Paul are inspired Scripture. I have reviewed several versions and also my interlinear Greek New Testament and I don't find any substantive differences in what is written. There may be a slight differences of words and expressions, but what Paul wrote was the same in all versions I read.

It is a convenient avoidance by saying that we cannot rely on the writing of Paul because he was not approved by the other Apostles and that the various versions of his letters "muddied the waters" of his writing. It reminds me of my youngest brother upsetting the chess board when he found he was losing the game.

 

[Righttruth]

Righttruth said: ↑

A self-assessment of bilingual person cannot be accepted in its face value. The person's spirit's utterances need to be evaluated from other sources. We need a minimum of two independent witnesses or sources.

Oscarr said: I think it would be such an amazing event that a person reporting it would not lie about it, but would celebrate it before all. To prove it he could speak in his own dialect to show that what the person spoke in tongues was exactly the same language. That would be proof enough.

I think you are mixing up two different issues here: speaking an existing foreign language and unknown tongue. I am saying the interpretation of the unknown tongue needs verification.

Exactly, because the event at Pentecost was a one-off for a particular purpose. There is no indication that the other two events in Acts were the same. To say that these two were also understandable languages is arguing from silence.

The events may be at different places and context. But no interpretation was done as it was not required as it was understood by someone present. One has to be too naïve to accept some non-understandable babbling as that of the Holy Spirit’s motivation.

True, but the ability to pray from his spirit originates from the Holy Spirit.

No way. Paul also doesn’t support this. Any utterance or motivation of the Holy Spirit cannot go as a waste anywhere.

It can't come from anywhere else. Also the context is concerning tongues because the chapter is all about tongues and prophecy. So he is not talking about prophecy when he says that he prays and sings with his spirit, therefore he is speaking about his prayers in tongues.

This chapter is about unknown tongues that is related to person’s spirit. Of course, prophecy is different. That is why Paul recommends that.

RT wrote: The major lacunae is the claim of unknown tongue as a spiritual gift.

Well that is how Paul defines it along with interpretation in 1 Corinthians 12. He also defines "various tongues" as manifestations of the spirit, and so private tongues prayer fits into that.

Chapter 12 is different from chapter 14. They cannot be mixed up. The Holy Spirit should not be dragged on to represent a person’s unknown tongue.

Os wrote:Where does it say that Paul created a division in the early church? I don't see that at all. He went to Jerusalem and put his case, told them of his experience on the Damascus Road, and the Apostles approved him. Peter, in his letter, showed his full approval of Paul. So I see your comment as a logical theory but nothing more. I don't see full, clear support for it in the Acts record or in Peter's letter.

Acts 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.

38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.

39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.



Disagreement arose in Galatia also. Even though Paul was right, He accosted Peter in an unchristian manner much against the teaching of Jesus as expected because Paul never knew much of the teachings of Jesus

Then cut Paul's letters out of your Bible, because you seem not to accept them as inspired New Testament scripture.

Yes, it would be better. But I accept Paul when he complements Jesus and just ignore his speculations. The Holy Spirit should help us discern the truth preached by Jesus from many writings available.

Paul never said that tongues was inferior. All he said that speaking out in tongues without interpretation is not to be preferred. Teaching that tongues is inferior is another bit of raving from a mad monk. If Paul said he spoke in tongues more than them all and he would they all spoke in tongues, then how could he see it as inferior?

When the Holy Spirit can deal directly with one person, seeking another agent is definitely inferior. Since unknown tongue itself is inferior—whether it was employed by Paul or not—adding spice to that doesn’t help.

Remember Paul admits using craftiness camouflaged with deception in his approach for Corinthians. Also he was troubled by the messenger of Satan all the time, probably, due to his boasting nature. Christian person tends to be humble, not driven by ego of knowledge.

I think that you are the product of what you have been taught concerning the manifestation of the gifts of the Spirit and the gift of tongues. I can understand that. My formative years were in Pentecostal churches where I received different teaching. Being a Calvinist I believe in the absolutely authority of Scripture including all of the New Testament. That means I believe that the letters of Paul are inspired Scripture. I have reviewed several versions and also my interlinear Greek New Testament and I don't find any substantive differences in what is written. There may be a slight differences of words and expressions, but what Paul wrote was the same in all versions I read.

I don’t question genuine letters of Paul though none of the originals are available, and many say that he was not the author of pastoral letters. But I am against Paul-mania of Protestants.

It is a convenient avoidance by saying that we cannot rely on the writing of Paul because he was not approved by the other Apostles and that the various versions of his letters "muddied the waters" of his writing. It reminds me of my youngest brother upsetting the chess board when he found he was losing the game.

Non-acceptance of Paul’s apostleship by chosen apostles is a serious matter. Probably your brother found out that you are using a chequered board after all!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I think you are mixing up two different issues here: speaking an existing foreign language and unknown tongue. I am saying the interpretation of the unknown tongue needs verification.

I don't think so if the person speaking the tongues language has no idea what he is saying and it happens to be understood by a native speaker of that language.
I have a close friend whom I know can speak only English. He was in a prayer meeting once where everyone prayed in tongues. A visiting brother from Ghana was present. He got quite excited when he heard my friend praising God in his own village dialect, a language which my friend could never have known. I knew the Ghanaian brother personally while he was in New Zealand, and he confirmed it and that it was a total miracle.
I was in church, where tongues was spoken, and I was praying during an altar call. A Maori lady, who could speak the Maori language fluently (I didn't know the language at that time), heard me speaking the Maori language fluently, without any accent, and it was words of encouragement from the Lord to her.
I have another friend who spent most of his childhood and teenage years in a Pentecostal church in Kenya in the 1950s. He said that men, who had never had any contact with Europeans, came in from isolated areas, got saved, filled with the Spirit, spoke in tongues - and some of them spoke perfect Oxford English, praising the Lord. No African can speak English without an accent unless he had spent his childhood in England. It is a fact that a child has to learn a language before the age of 4 to be able to speak it without an accent. Swiss children can speak English, French and German without an accent, because they learned these languages by the age of 4. Anyone older will speak with an accent. These bush men were mature men and when they spoke in tongues, they spoke English without an accent.
These are testimonies from people that I know personally. It is one thing having an academic and theoretical view about these things, but the genuine experience of people that I know who are totally honest outweighs it. The guy from Kenya is a very strict Calvinist and has a theology to match and is very particular about what he believes and does not believe, and he is totally convinced that these bush men received genuine tongues that turned out to be pure English.

The events may be at different places and context. But no interpretation was done as it was not required as it was understood by someone present. One has to be too naïve to accept some non-understandable babbling as that of the Holy Spirit’s motivation.

But all the people I have just spoken about were speaking "non-understandable babbling" as you put it. They, including me, had no idea what they were saying at the time. Tell me, how can a person speaking in a non-understandable tongue be speaking Ghanian dialect, Maori language, and English if it were not the Holy Spirit. Who else is able to cause that to happen?

The problem with anti-tongues teaching being drummed into a person for years during their Christian formative years is that they are locked into that belief and nothing can convince them otherwise. This is what happened to the Pharisees. They were the conservative theologians of their time. Not all of them were evil men, although the ones who trolled Jesus were. Their error was that they had teaching drummed into them that the Messiah was going to come as a powerful Saviour who was going to free them from Roman domination. When Jesus appeared as something different, even though they saw the miracles and heard the teaching, they simply could not believe anything different to what they were taught.

I propose that even if you saw someone you know speaking in a tongue, and a Chinese person got up and said the person was speaking in Mandarin, a language that the other person could never have known, praising God. I don't think that you would believe it even then, because your years of anti-tongues teaching would blind you to it.

As it is, your indoctrination has caused you to pick and choose which of Paul's writing you choose to believe as truth and which you have been taught is mere speculation.

I know of a child from a broken home who had it drummed into her that her father did not care about her because he was not around during her childhood. Even though the father did make contact some years later and showed for the next 22 years that he did love and care about her, she could not believe it and this caused a rift between them. So the indoctrination drummed into her that her father was uncaring and callous toward her shaped her attitude to him right into adulthood, and nothing that could be said that could snap her out of it, even though it could be proved that her father did care for her during their years apart. My daughter studied this for her psychology degree and was able to confirm to me that this was a scientific fact that teaching and attitudes drummed into a child through their childhood remains for a lifetime, even though the obvious facts are quite different.

This is why many are prejudiced against tongues, because they have had anti-tongues nonsense drummed into them for years and so they cannot believe anything else, and will use every argument against it, even though there are thousands of testimonies of people having their experience with God greatly enhanced through the use of it, and the many miracles of people speaking in tongues not knowing they were speaking understandable languages which were acknowledged by others in the group.

Of course, you can rightly say that I had the first 12 years of my Christian life having it drummed into me that tongues is genuine and from the Holy Spirit! So I might be as bad as you are, for different reasons!

 

[Alithis]

I think you are mixing up two different issues here: speaking an existing foreign language and unknown tongue. I am saying the interpretation of the unknown tongue needs verification.





The events may be at different places and context. But no interpretation was done as it was not required as it was understood by someone present. One has to be too naïve to accept some non-understandable babbling as that of the Holy Spirit’s motivation.





No way. Paul also doesn’t support this. Any utterance or motivation of the Holy Spirit cannot go as a waste anywhere.





This chapter is about unknown tongues that is related to person’s spirit. Of course, prophecy is different. That is why Paul recommends that.







Chapter 12 is different from chapter 14. They cannot be mixed up. The Holy Spirit should not be dragged on to represent a person’s unknown tongue.




Acts 15:37 Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.

38 But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.

39 And there occurred such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away to Cyprus.



Disagreement arose in Galatia also. Even though Paul was right, He accosted Peter in an unchristian manner much against the teaching of Jesus as expected because Paul never knew much of the teachings of Jesus





Yes, it would be better. But I accept Paul when he complements Jesus and just ignore his speculations. The Holy Spirit should help us discern the truth preached by Jesus from many writings available.



When the Holy Spirit can deal directly with one person, seeking another agent is definitely inferior. Since unknown tongue itself is inferior—whether it was employed by Paul or not—adding spice to that doesn’t help.

Remember Paul admits using craftiness camouflaged with deception in his approach for Corinthians. Also he was troubled by the messenger of Satan all the time, probably, due to his boasting nature. Christian person tends to be humble, not driven by ego of knowledge.



I don’t question genuine letters of Paul though none of the originals are available, and many say that he was not the author of pastoral letters. But I am against Paul-mania of Protestants.



Non-acceptance of Paul’s apostleship by chosen apostles is a serious matter. Probably your brother found out that you are using a chequered board after all!

I'm convinced more and more that you really have no idea what your talking about

 

[Righttruth]

I'm convinced more and more that you really have no idea what your talking about

Do you understand if I spoke in an unknown tongue? Or do you understand this unknown writing: lkdflke rkjoijdfiew oijeorjvij vjoiej jdcijfcd ejeovoi ?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Do you understand if I spoke in an unknown tongue? Or do you understand this unknown writing: lkdflke rkjoijdfiew oijeorjvij vjoiej jdcijfcd ejeovoi ?

That is an unanswerable question. When I pray in an unknown tongue, I have had constant assurances that God understands and appreciates it, and that puts my experience with tongues way out of range of any critic. This is because I don't use tongues for the benefit of anyone else but God, who is the only Judge of whether I am speaking in a language HE understands or not. Tongues is an articular language and is in no way similar to the writing you have demonstrated. I don't know whether what you have written is a proper language of some kind as a sort of trap, but as it appears, it is impossible to make any sense of it, nor can it be pronounced as any sort of language. Yet, if you saw written Hindi, Japanese, or Arabic, you wouldn't be able to make any sense of that either, but these languages are definite known languages, but not known to us. I have heard Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic spoken when I was working for the court and through an interpreter. The languages sounded like gibberish to me, yet they were understandable languages. So it makes a lot of sense to me that when I pray in tongues to the One Person who understands it, then HE is the only one who has the right to come back at me and say that what I am speaking is nonsense to Him. In the 50 years that He has been speaking to me, He has never said that to me; rather He has gone to some lengths to assure me that He understands and appreciates what I am saying when I am praying to Him in tongues.

So you can express as many doubts as you like. You can say where Paul was speaking truth and where he was speculating. You can say that the hundreds of people who have testified to hearing their own languages being spoken by people who have never learned them are mistaken or lying, but there is one place you cannot enter into - my personal relationship and fellowship with God who has constantly expressed His approval to me about the way I pray in tongues to Him.

To say to me that my prayer language is false and that God does not understand it is the height of presumption, because there is no way in this universe that you can know one way or another. I don't have to prove anything to you, or impress you in any way, because when I am alone with God, He is the only one to impress, and He doesn't put up with falsehood or lying; but He has given me every indication that He loves fellowshipping with me when I pray with my understanding and pray in tongues.

 

[Alithis]

Do you understand if I spoke in an unknown tongue? Or do you understand this unknown writing: lkdflke rkjoijdfiew oijeorjvij vjoiej jdcijfcd ejeovoi ?

See...you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Biblicist]

This is reading too much into what is not connected.

Huh . . . the many thousands of scholars, commentators and local church leaders who have understood this very important aspect of receiving the Holy Spirit will of course strongly disagree with you; I never thought that I would ever hear anyone say such a thing.

 

[Righttruth]

I don't think so if the person speaking the tongues language has no idea what he is saying and it happens to be understood by a native speaker of that language.
I have a close friend whom I know can speak only English. He was in a prayer meeting once where everyone prayed in tongues. A visiting brother from Ghana was present. He got quite excited when he heard my friend praising God in his own village dialect, a language which my friend could never have known. I knew the Ghanaian brother personally while he was in New Zealand, and he confirmed it and that it was a total miracle.
I was in church, where tongues was spoken, and I was praying during an altar call. A Maori lady, who could speak the Maori language fluently (I didn't know the language at that time), heard me speaking the Maori language fluently, without any accent, and it was words of encouragement from the Lord to her.
I have another friend who spent most of his childhood and teenage years in a Pentecostal church in Kenya in the 1950s. He said that men, who had never had any contact with Europeans, came in from isolated areas, got saved, filled with the Spirit, spoke in tongues - and some of them spoke perfect Oxford English, praising the Lord. No African can speak English without an accent unless he had spent his childhood in England. It is a fact that a child has to learn a language before the age of 4 to be able to speak it without an accent. Swiss children can speak English, French and German without an accent, because they learned these languages by the age of 4. Anyone older will speak with an accent. These bush men were mature men and when they spoke in tongues, they spoke English without an accent.
These are testimonies from people that I know personally. It is one thing having an academic and theoretical view about these things, but the genuine experience of people that I know who are totally honest outweighs it. The guy from Kenya is a very strict Calvinist and has a theology to match and is very particular about what he believes and does not believe, and he is totally convinced that these bush men received genuine tongues that turned out to be pure English.


But all the people I have just spoken about were speaking "non-understandable babbling" as you put it. They, including me, had no idea what they were saying at the time. Tell me, how can a person speaking in a non-understandable tongue be speaking Ghanian dialect, Maori language, and English if it were not the Holy Spirit. Who else is able to cause that to happen?

The problem with anti-tongues teaching being drummed into a person for years during their Christian formative years is that they are locked into that belief and nothing can convince them otherwise. This is what happened to the Pharisees. They were the conservative theologians of their time. Not all of them were evil men, although the ones who trolled Jesus were. Their error was that they had teaching drummed into them that the Messiah was going to come as a powerful Saviour who was going to free them from Roman domination. When Jesus appeared as something different, even though they saw the miracles and heard the teaching, they simply could not believe anything different to what they were taught.

I propose that even if you saw someone you know speaking in a tongue, and a Chinese person got up and said the person was speaking in Mandarin, a language that the other person could never have known, praising God. I don't think that you would believe it even then, because your years of anti-tongues teaching would blind you to it.

As it is, your indoctrination has caused you to pick and choose which of Paul's writing you choose to believe as truth and which you have been taught is mere speculation.

I know of a child from a broken home who had it drummed into her that her father did not care about her because he was not around during her childhood. Even though the father did make contact some years later and showed for the next 22 years that he did love and care about her, she could not believe it and this caused a rift between them. So the indoctrination drummed into her that her father was uncaring and callous toward her shaped her attitude to him right into adulthood, and nothing that could be said that could snap her out of it, even though it could be proved that her father did care for her during their years apart. My daughter studied this for her psychology degree and was able to confirm to me that this was a scientific fact that teaching and attitudes drummed into a child through their childhood remains for a lifetime, even though the obvious facts are quite different.

This is why many are prejudiced against tongues, because they have had anti-tongues nonsense drummed into them for years and so they cannot believe anything else, and will use every argument against it, even though there are thousands of testimonies of people having their experience with God greatly enhanced through the use of it, and the many miracles of people speaking in tongues not knowing they were speaking understandable languages which were acknowledged by others in the group.

Of course, you can rightly say that I had the first 12 years of my Christian life having it drummed into me that tongues is genuine and from the Holy Spirit! So I might be as bad as you are, for different reasons!

Somehow I think you are not able to make out my thrust in tongues. There are two types: One person speaking an existing foreign tongue unknown to him but recognized by some people present (Pentecostal phenomenon). That glorifies the power of the Holy Spirit. The other one is the Corinthian type when a person a speaks an unknown tongue, unknown to the person speaking and unrecognized by any one present. This is not prompted by the Holy Spirit because nothing is unknown to the Holy Spirit. Paul only wishes that to be interpreted which may not be the same as what was uttered.
Do you recognize the two distinctly?

 

[Righttruth]

Huh . . . the many thousands of scholars, commentators and local church leaders who have understood this very important aspect of receiving the Holy Spirit will of course strongly disagree with you; I never thought that I would ever hear anyone say such a thing.

For the time being, do you agree that what happened on Pentecost was different from what was happening in Corinth after Paul left with an earlier stay of about one and half years?

I will come to your comment next.

 

[Righttruth]

That is an unanswerable question. When I pray in an unknown tongue, I have had constant assurances that God understands and appreciates it, and that puts my experience with tongues way out of range of any critic. This is because I don't use tongues for the benefit of anyone else but God, who is the only Judge of whether I am speaking in a language HE understands or not. Tongues is an articular language and is in no way similar to the writing you have demonstrated. I don't know whether what you have written is a proper language of some kind as a sort of trap, but as it appears, it is impossible to make any sense of it, nor can it be pronounced as any sort of language. Yet, if you saw written Hindi, Japanese, or Arabic, you wouldn't be able to make any sense of that either, but these languages are definite known languages, but not known to us. I have heard Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic spoken when I was working for the court and through an interpreter. The languages sounded like gibberish to me, yet they were understandable languages. So it makes a lot of sense to me that when I pray in tongues to the One Person who understands it, then HE is the only one who has the right to come back at me and say that what I am speaking is nonsense to Him. In the 50 years that He has been speaking to me, He has never said that to me; rather He has gone to some lengths to assure me that He understands and appreciates what I am saying when I am praying to Him in tongues.

So you can express as many doubts as you like. You can say where Paul was speaking truth and where he was speculating. You can say that the hundreds of people who have testified to hearing their own languages being spoken by people who have never learned them are mistaken or lying, but there is one place you cannot enter into - my personal relationship and fellowship with God who has constantly expressed His approval to me about the way I pray in tongues to Him.

To say to me that my prayer language is false and that God does not understand it is the height of presumption, because there is no way in this universe that you can know one way or another. I don't have to prove anything to you, or impress you in any way, because when I am alone with God, He is the only one to impress, and He doesn't put up with falsehood or lying; but He has given me every indication that He loves fellowshipping with me when I pray with my understanding and pray in tongues.

As I have said before, I am not concerned with your way of communication with God. You see, that is not one of the spiritual gifts. You know, God has given one of the greatest gifts to mankind to articulate that is understandable. So why speak in terms that you yourself don't understand?

 

[Righttruth]

See...you don't know what your talking about.

Why don't you say the same thing to a person who speaks unknown tongue?

 

[Alithis]

Why don't you say the same thing to a person who speaks unknown tongue?

Because most people I know who speak other languages are not speanding Their time speaking AGAINST plain scripture by plucking one verse out of vcontrctvsnd attributing to it a meaning that isn't there.

Your one single argument rests on one
Single refuted point.
That the gift has ceased because the perfect has come and you call the bible the perfect.
Yet..
-for the perfect to come the imperfect must pass away..obviously hasn't
The bible is incomplete...
-Paul's letters to Corinth are 2 of 3..We don't have the first. Incomplete is not perfect.
-every doctrine in scripture is verified with other scripture ,the old testament reflecting the new.your misplaced verse has none.
- there are various kinds of tongues.

So the more you argue against such obvious error.
The more I'm convinced the two of you don't know what your talking about.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Somehow I think you are not able to make out my thrust in tongues. There are two types: One person speaking an existing foreign tongue unknown to him but recognized by some people present (Pentecostal phenomenon). That glorifies the power of the Holy Spirit. The other one is the Corinthian type when a person a speaks an unknown tongue, unknown to the person speaking and unrecognized by any one present. This is not prompted by the Holy Spirit because nothing is unknown to the Holy Spirit. Paul only wishes that to be interpreted which may not be the same as what was uttered.
Do you recognize the two distinctly?

Paul gave his teaching to the Corinthians because they were misusing the gift and using their private prayer language out loud in public without interpretation. Paul says that way of using tongues is useless in the public meeting because no one can understand what is being said. So he says that if a person wants to pray in tongues, let him do it to himself and to God and not out loud. I make a distinction between praying in tongues (private) and speaking in tongues (public), although Paul uses "speaking" for both, and this can be a bit confusing to some. Speaking in tongues in a public meeting must be followed by an interpretation.

You will notice that Paul does not give this teaching in any of the other churches. This is often interpreted as tongues not be used in the other churches. I believe that it is because the gifts are being manifested correctly and the problem with people praying in tongues out loud in public meetings did not rise in the other churches.

If the assertion that tongues and prophecy were absent from the other churches (although Paul mentions prophecy to the Roman Christians), then we must say that the Resurrection and the attributes of Love were missing too, because Paul does not go into any length about either in the other churches as he did with the Corinthians.

Paul did not have any idea that his letters were going to be treated as Holy Scripture. He wrote to deal with issues that arose in the churches he visited. There were particular issues in the Corinthian church, so he wrote about them. There were other issues with the Galatians, so he wrote to deal with those ones. The Thessalonians had their particular issues with persecution, so he tailored his letter accordingly. Each of Paul's letters deals with most of the issues that occurred in the different churches, and so we get a broad picture of the issues that face our churches. John saw problems with the Gnostic heresy, so he wrote his Gospel and first letter to show that Jesus was a real Person and not a sort of phantom.

I think that many Pentecostal and Charismatic groups need to read 1 Corinthians very carefully and use that letter to identify the misuse of tongues in their churches. When I was in that movement, I prayed in tongues out loud in public meetings, but in later years as I looked at 1 Corinthians more carefully I discovered how wrong that was and when I became involved in a Charismatic ministry I resolved not to pray publicly and only spoke out in tongues when there were interpreters present. Of course I can't pray out loud in tongues in my present church because it is Presbyterian and we don't do that there. I think that it is God's wisdom for me that he put me in that church! And He gave me a wife who is not Charismatic to keep my feet on the ground!

As a side note, my daughter was baptised in a Pentecostal church when she was 16, and my wife and I attended. During the worship time, many were praying in tongues out loud, and my wife turned to me with eyes like saucers, saying, "Are those people speaking in tongues???" She then said, "Not my cup of tea!" She had never heard me praying in tongues because I kept it very private, even from her, because she would have thought I was weird. When we first met, she thought I was too religious for her, and I had completely calmed down by then!!! So, I had to be real and down to earth with my Christian faith and practice - be the same at home as I am at church - for her to respect my faith. She has a Catholic background, and so thinks differently about Christian faith than I do.

Anyway, I got off the track a bit, but it is good to have an understanding of where I am coming from in all this.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

As I have said before, I am not concerned with your way of communication with God. You see, that is not one of the spiritual gifts. You know, God has given one of the greatest gifts to mankind to articulate that is understandable. So why speak in terms that you yourself don't understand?

Because it is the ultimate in faith - to pray in a language I don't understand to communicate praise to God and to intercede for others. Although I have not known what I have been praying, I have sensed a flow out of my spirit which has assured me that my spirit is communication with God, who is a Spirit as well. The result is that I have sensed a closer fellowship with God, and that my intercession for others has had results. One notable one was a woman near death in hospital with uncontrolled stomach bleeding. I asked God to guide my tongue and immediately started speaking in a whole different language that came so fast that I could not have made it up. This carried on for twenty minutes and then the flow stopped. I had no idea what I was saying, but I just knew that the intercession was intense. I found out the next day that the bleeding stopped and the woman was out of danger. When my daughter went through 2 years of clinical depression, I interceded for her in tongues all that time, and now she is out the other side, a confident, resourceful and capable 25 year old woman. I got the scripture, "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much." as my foundation of faith, and it really worked.

Unless you have had those experiences with tongues, you can never know how powerful it is as a prayer tool. Using tongues without interpretation in public meetings is like letting all the steam in a steam locomotive out through the whistle. There may be interesting sounds but a waste of spiritual steam which should be going into the spiritual driving wheels to get the train moving. But prayer in tongues in private before God is the most powerful and effective prayer because it is based on pure faith and trust in God that what one is praying is in the direct will of God. Unless you have experienced it, you can never know it.

 

[Righttruth]

Because most people I know who speak other languages are not speanding Their time speaking AGAINST plain scripture by plucking one verse out of vcontrctvsnd attributing to it a meaning that isn't there.

The entire Paul's letters are just appendix to the gospel books.

Your one single argument rests on one
Single refuted point.
That the gift has ceased because the perfect has come and you call the bible the perfect.

I don't agree that spiritual gifts have ceased. I don't consider Bible to be perfect since it has been manipulated, mistranslated, misquoted, added, deleted, etc.

Yet..
-for the perfect to come the imperfect must pass away..obviously hasn't
The bible is incomplete...
-Paul's letters to Corinth are 2 of 3..We don't have the first. Incomplete is not perfect.
-every doctrine in scripture is verified with other scripture ,the old testament reflecting the new.your misplaced verse has none.
- there are various kinds of tongues.

So the more you argue against such obvious error.
The more I'm convinced the two of you don't know what your talking about.

Yes, speaking in unknown tongue is not supported by any another book or author in the entire Bible. Do you imitate Paul or Jesus. Paul will not sanction salvation for you