|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/18/2006 3:54:39 PM
|
|
|
uthguy4lyf
Posts: 39
Status: offline
|
many thanks morningstar for the great reply with due emphasis where it was needed--really helps the discussion to see things w/o colored lens (meaning no bias)
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/19/2006 11:38:51 PM
|
|
|
lecoop
Posts: 231
Joined: 11/5/2005
Status: offline
|
cjwpastor said
quote:
Second point:
Lecoop, Paul is saying the exact opposite of what you are implying. He says he will pray in the spirit AND with his understanding. They are not separated - this is a distinction made only in the last 100 years with the advent of the Pentecostal movement and is not only foreign to non-tongue speakers, as you claim, but foreign to church history prior to 1903.
This is usually the response from someone that does not pray in tongues. It is a very foreign thought to open your mouth and speak, but not have the words go through your mind. However, this is exactly what Paul is saying. He said it a dozen different ways. You have to work hard NOT to get it. Please try to understand these two thoughts:
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.
How hard can this be? Paul distinctly is saying that a prayer in tongues is a prayer in the spirit and it is a mystery, for "no man understands him." It should be understood even here that the speaker falls into the catagory of "no man." In other words, even to the speaker, what is spoken is a "mystery." Therefore, how can you understand verse 15 to be both a prayer in the spirit and a prayer with the understanding, (at the same time) when Paul has just said the opposite? If you believe verse 2, then your understanding of verse 15 has to agree: the two types of prayer are mutually exclusive, and cannot happen at the same moment in time.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Every verse between verse 2 and verse 14, is an argument that tongues cannot be understood by the hearers. Now Paul again makes it clear that a prayer in tongues cannot be understood by the speaker either. Paul discribes it as "his spirit praying." When his spirit prays, his understanding is unfruitful. Again, one would have to work hard to misunderstand this, since Paul makes it so plain. A prayer in tongues is a prayer by the human spirit, and the mind is bypassed, and therefore is unfruitful and cannot understand what is being spoken. Again, if one understand this, then how can they say just the opposite when they get to verse 15? Therefore, verse 15 can only be interpreted one way: there are two kinds of prayer: "in the spirit" and "out of the spirit," which would be "in the flesh." When a prayer is prayed in the flesh, the thoughts are going through the mind, and there is understanding.
When a prayer is prayed in the spirit, the mind is bypassed, and the words are not understood: there is no understanding. It is impossible to pray both ways at the same time! One cannot pray with the mind and with or by the spirit at the same time. Either the human spirit prays and the mind cannot understand, or the mind prays; two types of prayer that are mutually exclusive. Let's look at this verse in some other translations:
Darby's English Translation
14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.
Very clearly here, with Paul's teaching of the two kinds of prayer, this verse is speaking of two kinds of praying; one in the spirit and one with understanding. For example, suppose one was rehearsing a part in a play, and the part was suppose to be spoken in Italian. The producer had the speaker say the part in English first, and then in Italian. Since the actor did not know Italian, he had to learn each word. When the actor got home, the wife questioned him, and he said, "I said the part in English, but I also said it in Italian."
Douay Rheims
14:15 What is it then ? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding.
Again, "I said the part in English, but I also said it in Italian." I prayed for a while in tongues, and I also prayed for a while in English. This is perfect grammer for having said the part twice. It is perfect grammer for Paul to say that he will do two kinds of praying; one in the spirit, and one with understanding.
Young's Literal Translation
14:15 What then is it? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing psalms with the spirit, and I will sing psalms also with the understanding;
Again, "I said the part in English, but I also said it in Italian." Paul will pray with the spirit, and he will also pray with the understanding, but not at the same time, since that is impossible.
1 Corinthians 14:15 (Amplified Bible)
15 Then what am I to do? I will pray with my spirit [by the [a]Holy Spirit that is within me], but I will also pray [intelligently] with my mind and understanding; I will sing with my spirit [by the Holy Spirit that is within me], but I will sing [intelligently] with my mind and understanding also.
The amplified says the same thing: "I said my part in English, but I also said it in Italian." I will pray in English, but I will also spend some time praying in the spirit - which is a prayer in tongues, and I will not understand what I am praying. However, it will be a perfect prayer, in the perfect will of God, for He is creating the prayer.
As for the understanding of this verse before 1900, as I have said before, it is a difficult passage to understand unless you pray in the spirit, in tongues. Who was praying in tongues before 1900? I can truthfully say that up until I received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, my spirit man never prayed, for I did not know that he could, or anything about it. When I submitted myself totally to God, when receiving the baptism with the spirit, then I made the connection between my spirit man and my mouth, and my spirit man was finally able to pray.
Now, can someone speak "by the spirit" or "in the spirit" and it be also in the learned language (for us English)? Yes, someone with years of practice of learning to yield the mouth to the human spirit, can preach a whole sermon from the human spirit, in his or her learned language. However, they will not know what they are saying, until they have spoken, for "my understanding is unfruitful." This would be preaching an entire sermon in prophecy. Not prophecy as in fortelling the future (although it could be) but as in forthtelling what the HS is desiring to say at that moment. I have met one such preacher in 50 years of going to church. I have met some that would switch back and forth, in the spirit for some time, and then in the flesh with the mind for a time. It is difficult to stay "in the spirit" for an extended period of time, unless one just prays in tongues.
Coop
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 12:10:34 AM
|
|
|
amsent
Posts: 41
Joined: 1/11/2006
Status: offline
|
If the gift of tongues as it was on the day of Pentecost is still operating today, How come there is need for an interpreter when an American minister speaks to a Russian congregation or vice versa. Can someone give us an example of this occurring and if so what was the outcome.The truth is here.
Why do the people not hear them speak in their own tongue as it was on the day of Pentecost. And to whom were the Corinthians speaking that required the need for tongues. Truth will prevail and every mouth that rises again'st it will cease. Praying in the spirit is your spirit man within seeking to connect with the Master and it is an all day all night thing for the spirit doesn't sleep so it is not about speaking the word in tongues but the longing for the word in the spirit. Pray always without ceasing. Your spirit can, your flesh can't.
Amsent For Truth
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 9:08:38 AM
|
|
|
uthguy4lyf
Posts: 39
Status: offline
|
this whole line of reasoning sounds like what cwpastor said was only introduced within the last 100 years. i also think it would be helpful for lecoop to have read morningstar's reply to the tongues movement history. i not only had them show their references, but showed that some references claimed were not valid. this idea that we're separate from our mind is a doubtful interpretation in that it still shows no purpose for today's church to spread the Gospel. as was stated much earlier the first time it appears was to tell of the "wonderful works of God"--i would take that to mean spreading the Gospel. if this was a prayer language then what about when Paul says that one day tongues will cease?? also Paul asks the question
1Co 12:30
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
this sounds as if the church is a body, we all have parts and gift/s. interesting to note that it wasn't spoken of as a prayer language.
now, if God wants me to pray in the Spirit (and i believe he does) then why do not i not speak in tongues? i'll tell you why b/c not everyone has/had this gift. it was used for a period of time to further the spread of the Gospel to all nations...not some prayer language that is spoken w/o knowing what you're saying. furthermore, why would God want a child of His to remain in dark about talking to Him through some unknown language? once again God is not wanting to remain hidden and in some spooky theology, but rather cries out that His creation Know Him and become like Him.
quote:
ORIGINAL: lecoop
cjwpastor said
quote:
Second point:
Lecoop, Paul is saying the exact opposite of what you are implying. He says he will pray in the spirit AND with his understanding. They are not separated - this is a distinction made only in the last 100 years with the advent of the Pentecostal movement and is not only foreign to non-tongue speakers, as you claim, but foreign to church history prior to 1903.
This is usually the response from someone that does not pray in tongues. It is a very foreign thought to open your mouth and speak, but not have the words go through your mind. However, this is exactly what Paul is saying. He said it a dozen different ways. You have to work hard NOT to get it. Please try to understand these two thoughts:
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.
How hard can this be? Paul distinctly is saying that a prayer in tongues is a prayer in the spirit and it is a mystery, for "no man understands him." It should be understood even here that the speaker falls into the catagory of "no man." In other words, even to the speaker, what is spoken is a "mystery." Therefore, how can you understand verse 15 to be both a prayer in the spirit and a prayer with the understanding, (at the same time) when Paul has just said the opposite? If you believe verse 2, then your understanding of verse 15 has to agree: the two types of prayer are mutually exclusive, and cannot happen at the same moment in time.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
Every verse between verse 2 and verse 14, is an argument that tongues cannot be understood by the hearers. Now Paul again makes it clear that a prayer in tongues cannot be understood by the speaker either. Paul discribes it as "his spirit praying." When his spirit prays, his understanding is unfruitful. Again, one would have to work hard to misunderstand this, since Paul makes it so plain. A prayer in tongues is a prayer by the human spirit, and the mind is bypassed, and therefore is unfruitful and cannot understand what is being spoken. Again, if one understand this, then how can they say just the opposite when they get to verse 15? Therefore, verse 15 can only be interpreted one way: there are two kinds of prayer: "in the spirit" and "out of the spirit," which would be "in the flesh." When a prayer is prayed in the flesh, the thoughts are going through the mind, and there is understanding.
When a prayer is prayed in the spirit, the mind is bypassed, and the words are not understood: there is no understanding. It is impossible to pray both ways at the same time! One cannot pray with the mind and with or by the spirit at the same time. Either the human spirit prays and the mind cannot understand, or the mind prays; two types of prayer that are mutually exclusive. Let's look at this verse in some other translations:
Darby's English Translation
14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.
Very clearly here, with Paul's teaching of the two kinds of prayer, this verse is speaking of two kinds of praying; one in the spirit and one with understanding. For example, suppose one was rehearsing a part in a play, and the part was suppose to be spoken in Italian. The producer had the speaker say the part in English first, and then in Italian. Since the actor did not know Italian, he had to learn each word. When the actor got home, the wife questioned him, and he said, "I said the part in English, but I also said it in Italian."
Douay Rheims
14:15 What is it then ? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding.
Again, "I said the part in English, but I also said it in Italian." I prayed for a while in tongues, and I also prayed for a while in English. This is perfect grammer for having said the part twice. It is perfect grammer for Paul to say that he will do two kinds of praying; one in the spirit, and one with understanding.
Young's Literal Translation
14:15 What then is it? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing psalms with the spirit, and I will sing psalms also with the understanding;
Again, "I said the part in English, but I also said it in Italian." Paul will pray with the spirit, and he will also pray with the understanding, but not at the same time, since that is impossible.
1 Corinthians 14:15 (Amplified Bible)
15 Then what am I to do? I will pray with my spirit [by the [a]Holy Spirit that is within me], but I will also pray [intelligently] with my mind and understanding; I will sing with my spirit [by the Holy Spirit that is within me], but I will sing [intelligently] with my mind and understanding also.
The amplified says the same thing: "I said my part in English, but I also said it in Italian." I will pray in English, but I will also spend some time praying in the spirit - which is a prayer in tongues, and I will not understand what I am praying. However, it will be a perfect prayer, in the perfect will of God, for He is creating the prayer.
As for the understanding of this verse before 1900, as I have said before, it is a difficult passage to understand unless you pray in the spirit, in tongues. Who was praying in tongues before 1900? I can truthfully say that up until I received the baptism with the Holy Spirit, my spirit man never prayed, for I did not know that he could, or anything about it. When I submitted myself totally to God, when receiving the baptism with the spirit, then I made the connection between my spirit man and my mouth, and my spirit man was finally able to pray.
Now, can someone speak "by the spirit" or "in the spirit" and it be also in the learned language (for us English)? Yes, someone with years of practice of learning to yield the mouth to the human spirit, can preach a whole sermon from the human spirit, in his or her learned language. However, they will not know what they are saying, until they have spoken, for "my understanding is unfruitful." This would be preaching an entire sermon in prophecy. Not prophecy as in fortelling the future (although it could be) but as in forthtelling what the HS is desiring to say at that moment. I have met one such preacher in 50 years of going to church. I have met some that would switch back and forth, in the spirit for some time, and then in the flesh with the mind for a time. It is difficult to stay "in the spirit" for an extended period of time, unless one just prays in tongues.
Coop
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 11:30:39 AM
|
|
|
figmentPez
Posts: 2665
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
i also think it would be helpful for lecoop to have read morningstar's reply to the tongues movement history.
Lecoop has had ample time to read MorningStar's posts. Both of their continued, and long winded, posts repeat the same points over and over, and are probably a major factor in this becomign a "One Stop" thread. I don't even read Lecoop's posts anymore, because I've basically read them all before. Nothing new has come out of his mouth in weeks, and he seeminly refuses to address anyone elses interpretation, simply repeating his own stance over and over and over and over. I can't tell if he's lost in his own little world, or if he honestly can't reason from the scriptures on his own and just spouts what he's been taught ad nauseum, or if he's too afraid to listen to anyone else, or if he just doesn't care. I've tried to get some thoughtful discussion of the implications of his doctrine, but he apparently doesn't care what actions or other doctrine follows from his viewpoint, he's just obsessed with tongues and insists that for any sort of effective prayer life you must speak in tongues.
_____________________________
I make this challenge to all Christians:
Read Daniel 7:13-14
And tell me: Who do you say that the Son of Man is?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 12:40:08 PM
|
|
|
BenQuebec
Posts: 1466
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Québec, Canada
Status: offline
|
Uthguy,
For what it's worth, I've tried to find concrete evidence of tongues spoken by others before the late 19th century, and nearly everything I've found boils down to hear-say. People say that some Wesleyans spoke in tongues, and that Quakers spoke in tongues, but I see no hard evidence to support those claims.
Thus, it very well could be that tongues ceased until the late 19th century, but there's no hard evidence to say they did, either.
Either way, the subject of tongues (and the promotion thereof) is notably absent from church literature for that period of time for whatever reasons. Thus we can logically come to any of the following conclusions:
1) Tongues ceased for that duration of time.
2) Tongues didn't cease, but its importance was negligeable to the point that writing about it was unnecessary.
3) Tongues didn't cease; they were perhaps understood as a given, and as such it was viewed as unnecessary to write about it.
4) Tongues didn't cease, but they were misunderstood and avoided; people didn't seek them during this time.
5) Tongues didn't cease at all, but we lack sufficient proof of this.
Some participants here may conclude that #1 is the most logical, and some may lean toward #5. My personal standpoint is that all 5 conclusions (and perhaps others) are equally possible. I don't think any of the conclusions can be proved to be 100% true with the portion of knowledge given to us, nor do I think that any of these conclusions can be summarily disproved and dismissed.
Re: Coop's posts,
I realize that he has been repetitive, but I don't want to assume he's been ignoring anyone's posts. I prefer to believe that he thinks we're perhaps missing the point of what he's saying, and we won't get it until we read it sufficiently. In all fairness, I do see Biblical logic in what he's saying. It's just that his logic, based on his interpretation, is very different, and it may be hard for him to understand why you don't understand the same scriptures the way he does.
_____________________________
If you see animosity, simply recognize it for the work of the flesh that it is, a fruit by which you may judge the character of the one who threw it at you.
Respond with the fruit of the Spirit, as your response will also be judged by its fruit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 1:01:50 PM
|
|
|
uthguy4lyf
Posts: 39
Status: offline
|
ben thanks for researching that. it's just like i thought it was. i personally think that tongues has ceased. it's good that we can work together to find solutions to our questions. i also think that waging personal wars with each other will not help anyone. i think it would help all of us to remain on the topic and not try and degrade each other no matter how we feel about each other opinions. have a great weekend
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 1:10:15 PM
|
|
|
psende
Posts: 121
Joined: 7/5/2005
From: The Land of Sky Blue Waters
Status: offline
|
I don’t think I’ll be here for long, but I feel a couple of comments coming on.
It seems obvious to me, as I’m sure it does to others, that all efforts of trying to explain the phenomenon of tongues to those who have not had the experience, is very much akin to explaining the things of God to someone who is unsaved.
How does one explain the virgin birth, the God-Man, or miracles? How can Someone’s blood wash a heart? How is it possible to be “born again?” How can God live inside us? How do you KNOW all this has taken place? And the questions go on and on.
The truth is, although that person may know the Bible and think he fully understands, until that unsaved person acts in faith and becomes saved, he will never really understand. Then, having experienced the new birth through that faith, he will KNOW his heart is washed, and will KNOW he is new, even though intellectual understanding may take some time.
It is the same story here. Those who have not spoken in tongues have difficulty understanding this work of the Holy Spirit even though they may think they do. I have never heard a “tongue speaker” suggest, for instance, that the purpose of tongues was for evangelism, but that seems to be a popular notion among those who are against tongues. It might be worth considering that they really thought this to be true, they would be seeking this gift fervently. (Many early Pentecostals did believe this to be the purpose, by the way, and left for foreign lands to reach the lost, only to be found without the ability to communicate in an, oftentimes, hostile environment.)
This notion is also not biblical. There is nothing to suggest – and I think ludicrous to do so – that the Apostles went to foreign lands speaking in tongues, not knowing what they were saying. It just did not happen that way. In fact, in I Cor 14:18-19, Paul states that he taught in languages he understood and were understood, even though he spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthians did.
It is true, that on the day of Pentecost, the 120 who were speaking in tongues were understood by foreign visitors. This is interesting, because the Bible does not say, necessarily, that the 120 were speaking in these foreign languages but only that each of the visitors heard THEM speak in “his own language.” (I personally take this to mean that the Holy Spirit may have been giving understanding to the crowd in this instance, momentarily negating the language barrier that had been put in place at the tower of Babel.) Whatever actually took place that day, there is no proof, in the Bible of a second occurrence of this exact phenomenon and, judging by what Paul writes in I Corinthians, “tongues” were unlearned and not understood by the speaker or the hearer.
If tongues are truly not for today, it then stands to reason that the tongues we witness are not of God. If not of God, each occurrence must be satanic. If that be the case, those of us who speak in unknown tongues – all those you know who speak in tongues – must be demonic. (Yes, if this be the case, then the “Chapter of Love” (I Cor 13) must be followed by the “Chapter of the Devil,” due to the number of Christians that have been led astray by I Cor 14.) And though we believe and put our faith in Christ, and are otherwise orthodox in all our beliefs; and though we claim the witness of the Spirit that we belong to Him, we are, among mankind, most foul. For we claim that God may very well still have use for the supernatural gifts His Word speaks of.
But, in fact, tongues are not “of the devil” and are as viable today as they were at the Church’s inception. Those who speak in tongues know and understand that they have not been given a tool of Satan, but a gift of God that is undoubtedly of a Spiritual nature. I Corinthians 14:1 tells us that we are to “earnestly desire” these kinds of gifts that the Spirit, Himself, gives. Should we not, therefore, desire them earnestly; and then, to the point of seeking them out?
All I can do is to add my witness to the Work of the Spirit. It is when I asked for the “baptism in the Holy Spirit” and began to speak in an unknown tongue that the things of God became alive (more fully alive) for me. That is the only way I can describe it. Just as when I felt clean and forgiven after coming to the Lord as a 9 year-old, so I seemed to get a grasp of scripture and a deeper understanding and appreciation of His gift of salvation and His other mighty works. I have been hugely blessed.
< Message edited by psende -- 1/20/2006 1:25:32 PM >
_____________________________
"This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent." John 6:29
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 1:41:42 PM
|
|
|
BenQuebec
Posts: 1466
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: Québec, Canada
Status: offline
|
Thanks for your input, Psende.
For what it's worth, I don't think that every tongue speaker I know is "not of God". However, I don't necessarily believe they're all "of God" either.
Going strictly by the Bible, church history aside, I believe there's enough evidence to support those who believe tongues are for today, whether or not we agree with the way they're practiced for the most part.
Sure, the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but the historical question has always been "when?". When perfection comes, sure, but how do you define perfection? The cannonization of Scripture? The second coming of Christ? Or something else?
Going back to what we've pretty much established, Scripture alone is not 100% clear on this. Thus, there's room for various interpretations.
I'd like to sign off for the weekend with a quote I read on one of the websites I researched: Tongues aren't divisive. People are.
Food for thought. 
_____________________________
If you see animosity, simply recognize it for the work of the flesh that it is, a fruit by which you may judge the character of the one who threw it at you.
Respond with the fruit of the Spirit, as your response will also be judged by its fruit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 4:17:33 PM
|
|
|
morning_star
Posts: 13
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
1 Corinthians 14:5 saysquote:
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified.
Here Paul says that he would rather have every one prophesy, unless the tongue speaker can interpret their own tongues. So why tongues? So why no interpretation of the prayer language in the church setting? Paul says that tongues is the lesser of all the gifts, so why isn't everyone trying to seek the gift of prophesy?
I would really like someone to take a stab at answering ALL my questions in post #71 - not just a few:
http://fcnforums.christianity.com/fb.aspx?m=839323
Both of these links below seem to shed some light on this subject. BenQuebec actually provided one of them - I've included the link to Part 2.
Doctrinal Distinctives of the Charismatic Movement - Part 1
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?id=5
Doctrinal Distinctives of the Charismatic Movement - Part 2
http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?id=6
_____________________________
The Bible warns us not to follow men (Jeremiah 17:5, Psalm 118:8), but to test what all leaders teach with scripture (1 John 4:1, Acts 17:11).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/20/2006 6:03:21 PM
|
|
|
uthguy4lyf
Posts: 39
Status: offline
|
this is an obvious attempt to make the scripture mean what you want it to mean. what do you think the disciples were telling the people?? tongues was OBVIOUSLY used for evangelism...this post also infers that maybe there is a more deeper relationship with God if you speak in tongues. if this is the case then why don't i speak in tongues? the answer is you have to be indoctrinated into beleiving this stuff...it's not like some would want us to believe...there was also a reference that if tongues were only for evangelism then why don't more people seek this gift?? because i know english well enough to speak english to lost people. just like when i'm overseas i speak the native language there (spanish, russian, french, etc...)
morningstar, i would love to see your questions answered, but it seems as though we aren't enlightened enough according to some on this thread.... (tongue in cheek)
quote:
There is nothing to suggest – and I think ludicrous to do so – that the Apostles went to foreign lands speaking in tongues, not knowing what they were saying. It just did not happen that way. In fact, in I Cor 14:18-19, Paul states that he taught in languages he understood and were understood, even though he spoke in tongues more than any of the Corinthians did.
It is true, that on the day of Pentecost, the 120 who were speaking in tongues were understood by foreign visitors. This is interesting, because the Bible does not say, necessarily, that the 120 were speaking in these foreign languages but only that each of the visitors heard THEM speak in “his own language.” (I personally take this to mean that the Holy Spirit may have been giving understanding to the crowd in this instance, momentarily negating the language barrier that had been put in place at the tower of Babel.) Whatever actually took place that day, there is no proof, in the Bible of a second occurrence of this exact phenomenon and, judging by what Paul writes in I Corinthians, “tongues” were unlearned and not understood by the speaker or the hearer.
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/21/2006 7:41:18 PM
|
|
|
lecoop
Posts: 231
Joined: 11/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: amsent
If the gift of tongues as it was on the day of Pentecost is still operating today, How come there is need for an interpreter when an American minister speaks to a Russian congregation or vice versa. Can someone give us an example of this occurring and if so what was the outcome.The truth is here.
Tongues were not meant to take the place of learning another language. In Acts 2, this was an added miracle to tongues. Who added it? Obviously God did. We don't see this added miracle in Acts 8, 10 or 19. Neither can we expect God to do it any time we want Him to. However, this miracle does happen occasionally today. A pastor friend of mine was preaching one time, and two men kept talking during the sermon. It began to bother him, and he was asking the Lord to stop it while he was preaching. Suddenly, they quit talking, and he finished his sermon. After the sermon, these two men came up and told him that they were from France, and only one of them knew English, so he was translating to the other during the sermon. But suddenly, this man started hearing the sermon in French, and thought that my pastor friend had started preaching in French! I know that he was not preaching in tongues, but the point is, God can cause people to hear in their own language. He did it in Acts 2, and He did it on this occasion.
Why do the people not hear them speak in their own tongue as it was on the day of Pentecost. And to whom were the Corinthians speaking that required the need for tongues. Truth will prevail and every mouth that rises again'st it will cease. Praying in the spirit is your spirit man within seeking to connect with the Master and it is an all day all night thing for the spirit doesn't sleep so it is not about speaking the word in tongues but the longing for the word in the spirit. Pray always without ceasing. Your spirit can, your flesh can't.
Again, this was a special miracle added to the tongues. God chose to give this special hearing then, and has on other occasions also. However, these things are as God wills, not as we will. Your idea of tongues is not in agreement with Paul. Paul said that tongues are speaking to God. Therefore, there is not a "need for tongues" to be heard by some people groups with a different language, but it is a supernatural language for us to pray. There is no scripture that we can just imagine a pray, and it is equivelant to praying. The bible teaches us to speak out in prayer.
Amsent For Truth
quote:
of the prayer language in the church setting? Paul says that tongues is the lesser of all the gifts, so why isn't everyone trying to seek the gift of prophesy?
We should be! But Paul, in context, was speaking about seeking gifts for the edification of the church. Since he was a leader of leaders, he was speaking from a leader's standpoint. He was by no means saying that one should not speak in tongues. In fact, he said that he spoke in tongues more than them all, showing that he thought tongues were extremely important. Where did Paul do all this speaking in tongues? In his personal prayer life.
Coop
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/21/2006 8:12:06 PM
|
|
|
lecoop
Posts: 231
Joined: 11/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: uthguy4lyf
this whole line of reasoning sounds like what cwpastor said was only introduced within the last 100 years. i also think it would be helpful for lecoop to have read morningstar's reply to the tongues movement history.
I have read it, and also studied it thoroughly in church history class. Some find it difficult to believe that God would allow tongues to die out, or nearly so, for hundreds of years, and then bring them back. However, it was not only tongues that died out - but nearly the whole truth of scriptures and the doctrines of salvation. Thank God, He brought them back through Martin Luthor, and others.
i not only had them show their references, but showed that some references claimed were not valid. this idea that we're separate from our mind is a doubtful interpretation in that it still shows no purpose for today's church to spread the Gospel.
It is not a doubtful interpretation, but exactly what Paul said. How else would you interpret "my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful." It is as I said before; those that have never spoken in tongues, find it a difficult concept that the spirit can speak through our mouth, and not go through the mind. However, this concept is also how prophecy works. Someone giving a prophecy, even though it is in the learned language, will not know what he or she is saying, until after they have said it. How can this be? Because "the understanding is unfruitful" because it is coming from the spirit man.
as was stated much earlier the first time it appears was to tell of the "wonderful works of God"--i would take that to mean spreading the Gospel. if this was a prayer language then what about when Paul says that one day tongues will cease??
When we get to heaven, we will be speaking to God face to face, and the need for tongues will cease. That day is not here, but will some day come.
also Paul asks the question
1Co 12:30
Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
this sounds as if the church is a body, we all have parts and gift/s. interesting to note that it wasn't spoken of as a prayer language.
Paul was making a distinction between personal prayers and ministering to the body. He was an apostle, and was teaching from a leader's standpoint. All these gifts were to be for the edification of the body of Christ. They were also gifts of people placed into a local body to minister these gifts of the spirit. For instance, it is a person that gives a prophecy. No person and there will be no prophecy. If someone is praying all alone, will God cause a prophecy to come forth? Probably not. These gifts are for ministering at a local gathering of believers. Definitely, all people in a local body will not be gifted with the gift of miracles. Definitely, all people in a local body will not be gifted with the gift of knowledge. Definitely, all people in a local body will not be gifted with the gift of interpretation of tongues. And definitely, all people in a local body will not be gifted with the gift of tongues. However, this has nothing to do with an individual receiving the baptism with the Holy Spirit, and speaking in tongues. We have to understand these verse in context.
now, if God wants me to pray in the Spirit (and i believe he does) then why do not i not speak in tongues? i'll tell you why b/c not everyone has/had this gift.
All things from heaven come through faith. Faith is impossible without knowledge of the word, since faith comes from the word. Therefore, one will not receive this baptism with the HS, with the initial evidence of tongues, unless they hear the word, allow themselves to agree with it, and then faith comes. Once someone hears the word of God about the baptism with the HS, and receives faith from that word, and then receives this baptism and speaks in tongues - only then will the context be right for this person to see if God will give them the gift of prophecy, or the gift of miracles, or the gift of knowledge, or the gift of tongues. This "gift of tongues" is the gift to be used in a local gathering to give a fresh message from the HS to the congregation (if there is an interpretor). Yes, I am making a distinction between tongues that comes with the baptism with the HS, and tongues as a gift for ministry. I make this distinction because I believe Paul makes the same distinction.
it was used for a period of time to further the spread of the Gospel to all nations...not some prayer language that is spoken w/o knowing what you're saying.
You are disagreeing with Paul here. Did you not understand: "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.?" The first purpose of tongues is as a prayer language, created by the HS, and placed in our human spirit, to be spoken out as tongues. This is always a perfect prayer, as it comes straight from God.
furthermore, why would God want a child of His to remain in dark about talking to Him through some unknown language? once again God is not wanting to remain hidden and in some spooky theology, but rather cries out that His creation Know Him and become like Him.
You will have to take this up with God. However, God put it in the bible, and means for us to believe it. God does not deal in "spooky things." That is only your twist, since you do not speak in tongues.
...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Gift of Tongues - One Stop Thread - 1/21/2006 11:51:57 PM
|
|
|
lecoop
Posts: 231
Joined: 11/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: figmentPez
quote:
i also think it would be helpful for lecoop to have read morningstar's reply to the tongues movement history.
Lecoop has had ample time to read MorningStar's posts. Both of their continued, and long winded, posts repeat the same points over and over, and are probably a major factor in this becomign a "One Stop" thread. I don't even read Lecoop's posts anymore, because I've basically read them all before. Nothing new has come out of his mouth in weeks, and he seeminly refuses to address anyone elses interpretation, simply repeating his own stance over and over and over and over. I can't tell if he's lost in his own little world, or if he honestly can't reason from the scriptures on his own and just spouts what he's been taught ad nauseum, or if he's too afraid to listen to anyone else, or if he just doesn't care. I've tried to get some thoughtful discussion of the implications of his doctrine, but he apparently doesn't care what actions or other doctrine follows from his viewpoint, he's just obsessed with tongues and insists that for any sort of effective prayer life you must speak in tongues.
YOu are right, figmentPez. I read what Morning_star writes.
No, I am not lost in my own little world, and I am not afraid to listen. However, how am I suppose to address error? When the Holy Spirit caused Paul and Luke to write, He did not have several different meanings to what He caused to be written. There may be other applications, but the Holy Spirit had one meaning to these scriptures. When 120 people received the baptism with the HS, after they had been born again (John 20), it was written as an example for us today. When those at Cornelius's house received the baptism with the HS, it was written as an example to us. When the Ephesians received the baptism with the HS, again, it was written as an example to us. Why then, after God has given us these examples, do people try to come up with their own plan to receive the HS? Why do they fight against plain truth? The baptism with the HS is there in black and white, as a second work of the HS. People can try to make this baptism into the baptism into the body of Christ, but it won't work. There is simply no scriptural connection. The baptism with the HS is a second work of the HS. We know that because born again people received it.
I was my hope, in writing these verses over and over, that someone could and would "get it." After all, faith comes by hearing, and hearing and hearing. It does not say that faith comes by having heard. However, before faith comes from any scripture, one has to agree with it. Why would I address an interpretation that is wrong, other than to point to the truth? Yes, I am repeating what I have been taught, but Paul and Luke were my teachers, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Even with a background of "tongues are of the devil" from the church I grew up in, I read what the 120 received, and I wanted it. I grew hungry for it, and I received it: the mighty baptism with the HS. Any reader of this thread can also receive, if they can overcome unbelief.
I have one question for the readers. Paul spoke in tongues more than them all. (This is saying a lot, for the Corinthians did a lot of speaking in tongues! ) He did this knowing that his mind was unfruitful. He did this knowing that "no man understands." He did this knowing that it was his spirit man praying. Why did he spend so much time praying in tongues? He said it edifies. If this was so important to him, why isn't it important to you? Why are you not following his example? After all, that is what He commanded:
quote:
1 Corinthians 4:16
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.
Coop
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
