Define the angel tongue of I Cor 13

And such contrived behavior in or out of the closet is useless and makes a mockery of prayer and God.

 

My mind is made up to follow the Word of God, nothing more and nothing less. You have failed to address the passages of scripture where Paul concedes the possibility they were "giving thanks well enough" but that others could not understand. He also gives instructions concerning its use, not prohibiting it all together, which is what many seem to want to do.

If you would have read the posts, you would see that I agree with you and have stated much the same thing several times.

That is a misrepresentation of what the Apostle Paul wrote and what God's Word teaches. They are instructed to be silent in the church and keep their conversation between themselves and God. Paul even conceded they could be having a conversation with God when he stated they were giving thanks well enough (in the estatic utterance) but that others could not understand.

You are substituting the wisdom of men for the wisdom of God concerning this issue. It is a matter of Christian conscience and Christian liberty.

peace to youraying:

 

Do you have any conception of what hyperbole is? It is much akin to sarcasm in many ways, and Paul employed both to great effect.

 

By your position it's probably Calvary Charismatic Church.
He just wants the name of your BAPTIST church.

Fill in the blanks: Calvary__________________

 

I will say that when a peacher is really blessed with the spirit, it is different than when you just talk to that man. Maybe Paul meant that. It may sound strange to some, but I don't think its just me, when I am blessed to preach. When you say Jesus just as a man, and when you say "Jesus" when in the Spirit as if you are really talking to Him, it is different. IMO

BBob,

 

Yes, I understand what hyperbole is. I see you still cannot bring yourself to address the passages of scripture I have discussed.

Paul is not using hyperbole when he concedes they are "giving thanks well enough". Paul is not using hyperbole when he gives instructions concerning the practice of "tongues", telling them that if no one could interpret, they must remain silent in the church; and speak to themselves and to God.

If you think he is using hyperbole in those passages, then you do not understand what hyperbole is.

Is there any particular reason you cannot bring yourself to accept what is the plain teaching of God's Word?

One thing I had to learn to accept is that God's wisdom is always better than man's wisdom.

Any objective reading of these passages will lead to the conclusion that Paul considered this issue a matter of Christian liberty and Christian conscience as long as the fellowship was not being disrupted by it.

peace to youraying:

 

You position is completely invalid because it is proof-texting 'outside' of the context given. Your version of context seems to go from verse 2 to verse 17 leaving out everything Paul says in between.

You keep equating Pauls usage of hyperbole in Chatper 13 to when he is getting on to them for their improper usage of the gift of tongues half way through chapter 14. You leap-frog across scripture to try to make a connection that is not there but in your own mind. Yes, Paul is most certain speaking of tongues when he state "you give thanks well" but that in NO WAY is connected to some false notion of an 'angelic' or estatic utterance but in the fact they are improperly using the gift as 1. a status symbol and 2. to no ones edification including their own. If a person prays in ANY language they do not understand it is of no profit nor benifit to them much less others around them. Paul states this plainly and clearly. You are to know what you are saying in any language and the interpreter verfies that what you think you are saying is actaully just that.

I must agreee admint that I can not for the life me understand you can not and will not submit to the clear teachings of scripture regarding the matter 1. what the purpose of the gifts given by the Holy Spirit are for (edification of the Church); 2. what the tongues actaully are (languages of men); 3. Its proper usage.

Any objective reading has always lead to exactly the opposite rendering of poor isogesis you gave. Read up on this stuff, seriously. Look at church history and show where this has been a continuous thing amoungst the churches or even look at current works by even those godly men who hold to your view of the Soveriegn Grace doctrince (like MacArthur's - The Charsimatic Choas) ..

 

Do you really stick your head so far down in the sand? You would be amazed at how many Baptists believe in ecstatic utterances.

Apparently you are not aware that the majority of Mormons come from SBC and RCC churches.

 

Your profile is very vague. You need to update it.

 

For those who do not believe in 1 Cor. that those were ecstatic utterances they would have to go no further and look at what the early church stood against--a practice that stood for about 2000 years. Do a study on The Eleusinian Mysteries.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

As I said, hyperbole and sarcasm are kin. Paul is using sarcasm there.

What passages am I missing? I haven't seen any used, other than partial quotes pulled out of context. Proof-texting is really easy to do when the verses are ripped from their context, but it is impossible to tist the meaning when they are left in their natural habitat.

I live dead center of "Pentecostal Central" and I have heard all the arguments many, many times. I have also studied the subject quite exptensively and very openly in case I was wrong. I could not find scriptural evidence to support the view, nor can you.

 

Does anyone know what a thrid class conditional sentence is or do they prefer to argue their ignorance without even looking at the text?

 

Friend, let me be clear. I do not answer to you. Please notify the moderators if that will make you feel better about yourself.

Unlike you, I am certain they will look closely at my posts, review what I have stated, and come to the conclusion that I have not "defended" tongues, but have consistently argued from scripture that it is a matter of Christian conscience and Christian liberty.

peace to youraying:

 

I know you were addressing someone else, but I want to be clear.

I have never said I "believe in" estatic utterances. I have, in fact, stated the opposite. But I do not want to address this issue in a manner inconsistant with scripture.

Paul gave instructions for its use which essentially kept it out of the fellowship and limited it to personal speach between the Chrisitan and God.

That makes it a matter of Christian Conscience and Christian liberty.

You have mentioned this a few times, so....please explain the "3rd class conditional sentence".

peace to youraying:

 

:1_grouphug:

peace to youraying:

 

Ecstatic utterances did exist. Paul was attempting to limit its use in worship and make worship meaningful to all do that believers were edified. Do a study on the Eleusinian Mysteries and you will see what Paul dealt with.

Take a look at:
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/conditional_sentences.htm
http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/conditional_sentences.pdf
http://www.chioulaoshi.org/BG/PDFs/Conditionals.pdf