Featured Seeking truth about "tongues"...

I would say no! But scriptures do not say for sure!
The reason I say "no" is because it says in 1 Cor. 14 that we are to pray for the interpretation. If we know the language/meaning of what we are speaking then why does it say to "pray for the interpretation?"

 

Three things I see wrong there:
1) They didn't need interpretation, because they had all those observing talking about what they were saying; this is proven by when it says that they thought the apostles were drunk, but Peter was able to hear them say that and corrected them.
2) I agree; scripture does not say that they didn't know what they were saying, so to assume that is adding to scripture. BUT--
3) We know for a fact that the apostles were praising and magnifying God; I cannot understand how God would allow anyone to praise Him without knowing they were praising Him. This makes no scriptural sense.

 

Not all thought they were drunk. I see mixed reactions to what went on that day. You are saying that they did not need to know what they were saying because of the ones observing were talking about it? But yet you are admitting that they did not know?

Again, I do not believe they know what they are saying without the interpretation. 1 Cor. 14 Says we are to pray for the interpretation.

I understand...but the Bible is clear that they were praising and magnifying God. 1 Cor. is clear that the one speaking does not understand because they are to pray for the interpretation.

 

Apparently you did not actually pay attention to what I posted.

 

No; I'm saying that it's incorrect to say the apostles had to pray for the interpretation.

Based on what I said in my point #3, I believe they consciously knew what they were saying.

I believe you're mixing up what 1 Cor 14 says. In the entire discourse, Paul is talking about someone speaking and others not being able to understand the speaker; this clearly was NOT the case in Acts 2. They spoke, and those around them understand in languages that the speakers shouldn't have been able to speak in.

Further, look carefully at 1 Cor 14:15. Paul says he will pray with the Spirit AND with the understanding. Paul was an apostle; why should we expect the other apostles to praise God without understanding what they were saying, when Paul said he prayed with both the Spirit AND the understanding?

As I pointed out in my point #3, it makes no scriptural sense that God would have us praise Him without knowing that we were praising Him. This is why Paul made the statement he did in verse 13; but also why he also reminded them that speaking in languages is a sign for unbelievers, not for us who believe. It's why he started by saying that if we don't understand what's being said, then we are unfruitful.

 

That is true - but in Acts 2 people are engaged in both.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The Gift of Tongues is used for evangelism according to 1Cor 14 it is "for the unbeliever" it is to reach the unbeliever as we see in Acts 2- speaking the language of the nations we are trying to reach with the Gospel.

In 1Cor 14:1 God says to "desire earnestly spiritual gifts".

In 1Cor 14 Paul says it is a sign to an unbeliever when done right. When done right - the man from China hears the Norwegian speaking Chinese as a new language given to the Norwegian for the purpose of evangelizing. (Or vice versa )

Paul says that when it is done wrong - it sounds like gibberish to an unbeliever and they are turned off by it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Interesting reading, but I have said what I believed about this, so I won't say much more.

But here is a curious fact: With all this tongue-talking going on, in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches, in evangelistic services on television and elsewhere, and on the mission field, an objective and rational observer would think that there would be cases in which a known language would have been identified, and yet the instances and evidences of this are nil.

The conclusion is that Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues-talk is not the gift of tongues of the New Testament. The resulting question would then be: If not the tongues evidenced in the NT, what is the source of Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues? There are several sources, some not particularly harmful, and some very harmful.

 

I read it as you saying they were prophesying in tongues. Tongues and prophesying are two different manifestations.

 

I believe it was more than the apostles speaking in tongues. I also believe that God shows us in our spirit what we are speaking. Not that we understand the language but the meaning of what we are saying.

As I stated above, yes, sometimes God does put in our spirit what is being said. But scriptures do not say in the case of Acts 2.

Either tongues has two purposes or the Bible contradicts itself! You have to ignore most of chapter 14 to believe otherwise. Interpretation of tongues is a spiritual gift, correct? The unbelievers are not able to interprete tongues unless they are a believer. So the disciples were speaking a language known to the ones hearing/unbelievers. Nowhere does it say they themselves knew the language they were speaking. We have discussed this in other threads and most ignore the scriptures that say speaking in tongues/praying in the spirit/bless with the spirit is speaking to God.

I can see two different types of praying: In the mind and in the spirit. Paul said that sometimes he prayed with his spirit (by the Holy Spirit), and sometimes he prayed with his mind. These are two different forms of praying.

Paul makes it clear in vs. 14 that tongues is with the spirit not the mind.
"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." (1 Corinthians 14:14)

He said our mind was unfruitful. In other words, when we pray in tongues, the Holy Spirit is providing the words to our spirits which we then speak out of our mouths. This bypasses our minds, which is why Paul said that his mind was unproductive when he prayed with his spirit.

As far as a sign to unbelievers I see it different than you do. First Paul says that tongues are a "sign" for unbelievers, but then he says that if unbelievers see people speaking in tongues, the unbelievers will think that the believers are out of their minds.

"Uninterpreted tongues" have been used in Israel's history as a sign to the unbelieving Israelites that God's judgment had come upon them. Paul was quoting a prophecy from Isaiah 28:11-12. So what are you saying the sign is to the unbeliever? Because Peter says in Acts 2 that the sign was that the Holy Spirit had been poured out.

 

THey were engaged in both in Acts 19 too! But they are still two seperate manifestations.

 

It does not say it is to reach the unbeliever. It says that it is a sign TO the unbeliever. Nowhere in scriptures does it give us an example of evangelizing to unbelievers. IF you will notice in Acts 2 No one got saved until Peter got up and preached! Not a single person was saved as a result of hearing people speak with tongues. Yes! Tongues was used to get their attention...then they were more open to hear the gospel that Peter preached. But it was the gospel that pricked their hearts, not tongues!

The correction was made that if tongues were in the assembly that it must be interpreted. It does not say that it was for the purpose of evagelizing! But that others would benefit from your blessing in the spirit.

"If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified." (1 Corinthians 14:16-17)

 

You can not disprove the real by pointing out the false! Scriptures are plain on tongues if we have ears to hear!

 

....we've covered this territory before; so allow me to ask this: What was the purpose of the book 1 Corinthians?

 

You cannot prove something is real when there is absolutely no evidence or confirmation of its reality. ALL of the evidence points to the falseness of Pentecostal/Charismatic tongues as being NOT the tongues of the New Testament.

Yes, scriptures are plain on tongues, and it absolutely does not support the Pentecostal/Charismatic doctrine and practice of tongues. That has been shown here time and time again.

 

You can believe what you want but there is not one shred of Biblical evidence that anyone but the apostles exercised sign gifts until Acts 6 through the laying on of hands. All previous mention is restricted to the apostles.

You are confusing design and function. They are designed to be a "sign" not to believers, not to gentile unbelievers (unlearned in scripture" but to "this people" or Jews. Their function is a LANGUAGE that provides UNDERSTANDABLE CONTENT.

You are ignoring CONTEXT! Paul is not writing the Corinthians to approve of their use of tongues but to disapprove and correct their use. It is not a gift for all Christians by personal choice but a gift selected by soverign choice to meet the NEEDS of the congregational body in its ministry (ch. 12). It is not to be used in any manner but it must be used within the confines of what defines love (ch. 12) which denies merely SELF uses; and within the confines of EDIFICATION for ALL including Self.

What you don't understand is the contextual meaning of the rule of edification - 14:6-11. Contextually edifying is defined as MENTAL COMPREHENSION BY ALL LISTENING INCLUDING THE SPEAKER:


A. HERE IS THE RULE OF EDIFICATION SPELLED OUT

6 ¶ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.


The RULE OF CONTEXTUAL EDIFICATION is that the use of ANY LANGUAGE is to convey MEANINGFUL CONTENT. He sets forth the rule.

Now he applies this rule to the gift of tongues in verses 13-19

B. THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF EDIFICATION = MEANINGFUL CONTENT - vv. 13-19

1. The Rule in regard to PERSONAL use of Tongues - vv. 13-15

13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
15 ¶ What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Do you know the meaning of "wherefore" in verse 13???? Apparently not! He states the rule, spells it out in no uncertain terms and then directly applies it first to the PERSONAL use of tongues - vv. 13-15.

According to the RULE OF EDICATION the person should not speak in tongues without interpretation! Why? Because it violates the rule of edification as the mind is unfruitful and the rule of edification demands the mind must be fruitful or it is WORTHLESS. - v. 13

When tongues is used in the church instead of where it is designed (the jews - vv. 20-21) then it becomes "unknown" because it is the designated listeners who understand it (Acts 2:6-11) or "this people" (1 Cor. 14:21). They need no interpreter. However, when it is used out of this designed context for PERSONAL or CHURCH use there is need for an interpreter. Why because YOU nor the CHURCH (believers) is the designed objects for this "sign" gift. Hence, YOU and the CHURCH exercising this gift cannot understand what is being said, any more if YOU or the CHURCH all started speaking chinese. The ability to speak chinese is not derived from YOUR FLESH but THROUGH YOUR SPIRIT. So your spirit has been gifted by God to exercise this spiritual sign gift and its doing it as designed and therefore doing it well as it can be done. He is not approving of the mere excercise of speaking but condemning the mere exercise of speaking IF NNE is discerning the content. It is pure gibberish nonsense that serves no purpose at all.

Verse 14 simply states the FACTS without interpertation. verse 14 is not an approval.

Verse 15 states what Paul will do. He will not speak in tongues as defined in verse 14. He will not speak in tongues if his mind is unfruitful! Why? Because it violates the rule of edification - vv. 6-11.



2. The Rule of Edification in regard to use in Church - vv. 16-27

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.


Verse 16 introduces OTHERS into the listening audiance whereas verses 13-15 were dealing only with SELF involvement. Not only will Paul repudiate the use of tongues as a SELF practice without understanding, but he repudiates the PUBLIC practice without fruitful understanding! Why becuase both practices violate the rules of "love" and violate "edification."

Paul speaks in tongues more than all of them! Not in the sense of VOLUME as it only takes TWO persons to speak in tongues more than ONE. But in the sense of the RULES (love, edification) and the DESIGN (vv. 20-22) that governs the proper use of tongues.

Yes, BAD and GOOD! This is not an approval but a condemnation IN CONTEXT. When you just BABBLE with yourself it is BAD because you violate the rule of edification for langauges - vv. 6-11. Therefore Paul determines he will not follow this BAD personal practice:

15 ¶ What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Note the introductory question - "what is it then"? He has just previously set forth the perimeter's in verses 6-11 to answer that question! What is it then? It is a use of NON-EDIFICATION contrary to the purpose of languages in general - vv. 6-11. What is it then? It is WRONG as it violates the base purpose of any langauge - to communicate meaningful understandable content. PAUL WON'T DO IT! What Paul will not do is what YOU and the CORINTHIANS share in common with each other.

You are jerking this text from its context. The Context is DISAPPROVAL of this practice NOT APPROVAL as verse 15 immediately clarifies.

He qualifies the designed "unbelievers" not to be the "unlearned"! Those who do not read and understand Isaiah 26:12-15 will be in the dark. He just told you what kind of unbeliever it is a "sign" for - vv. 21 why don't you believe him? It is for "THIS PEOPLE" in Jerusalem or the Jews. Jews are LEARNED in the Old Testament and would recognize it as a "sign" whereas Paul tells the Corinthians that the Gentiles regard it as "FOOLISHNESS" (1 Cor. 1:19) and think they were CRAZY!

 

Mostly a book of correction and emphasis on life style for the local church. But the correction is not denying the manifestation, just putting them all in order.

 

If it is true manifestation it does not need to be put in order. God can manifest Himself in perfection and man cannot mess that up.

 

Again, I do not know how the Pentecostal or Charismatic practice the manifestations. I am in a Baptist church that believes in the Holy Spirit and allows Him to manifest in our service through the gifts. We go by the order of the Bible. There is NO confusion in our service. Tongues are a rare manifestation, but they have been manifested in our service in order!

 

I will address the rest later..but you are wrong on this one. The day of Pentecost the 120 spoke in tongues with no hands laid on them. In Acts 10 no hands were laid on them when they began to speak in tongues.