Featured Seeking truth about "tongues"...

If it is weighing on your heart...maybe God wants you to search it out! You will not get a peace until you do! I have been there! Not every religion has 100% true doctrine...

 

Awaken has her own patented meaning of the phrase "The Manifestation." She might even have it copyrighted by now. It is not a Biblical meaning so I suppose she can do that. It is uniquely hers and no one else's.

 

I have heard many stories like this...but I have never witnessed it myself! Anytime someone gives their life to Jesus is a reason for joy!

 

Concerning tongues Charismatics have 100% false doctrine.

 

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal"
Then he proceeds to mention those manfestations...vs. 8-10
Pretty simple to me!

 

Of course you would never witness it; you speak in gibberish not languages. You are not able to tell what languages you speak in because they are not languages at all.

 

To you. But that is not what "manifestation" means. It has a wider context and meaning. Every believer is able to manifest the gifts that God has given him or her, and not one of those gifts today are the gifts of the Spirit of the first century. Thus your definition is wrong.

 

The scriptures are askew (to me) personally am finding it difficult to lean one way or the other. However, I have been around the block ( read my Testimony thread) and have not seen genuine tongue's, Biblical tongue's nor with the gifts God has given my been able understand or been pushed in the direction that tongue's are indeed still biblical or obtainable.

Nothing and no one has been able to prove it's alive today.

 

Actually, Awaken's not the only one. I personally know of an Independent Fundamental Baptist pastor who will swear to this day that he started witnessing to a man in English; and the man will swear to this day that the pastor was speaking in Spanish. The man responded the same as in your story.

As pointed out previously (by Lugnut, I think), I believe that if this story is true, it's a true representation of what happened in Acts 2.

--- edited to add:
I also personally know a charismatic who told me a story about being led of the spirit to buy a gallon of milk, and then driving around town until he felt led to stop at a house and give the milk to the person inside, who broke down in tears because they had been praying that God would somehow provide them some milk. Then I showed him on the internet where I had seen this story at least twice before, but he was pretty adamant about it happening to him. I can't disprove it, but I often wonder if he was just brainwashed.

-----
But there is no scriptural basis for praying by yourself in an unknown tongue. And I agree 110% with most of the rest here, that charismatics/pentecostals have perverted what scripture says.

 

Yes, I have drawn the same conclusion as you for very similar reasons.

 

you are missing the point altogether. He is directly applying the contextual definition of edification = UNDERSTANDING WITH MIND to verses 13-18 and all of its contents.

He is not approving the "if" scenario of verse 14 but stating it to disapprove of it.

The "or else" passage of verses 16-17 is a NEGATIVE not a positive consequence but you are interpreting it as a postive.

The only positive is that the FUNCTION which has its source in the spirit is presenting a good prayer but the PRACTICE of praying "in the spirit" without the mind is CONDEMNED not condoned. You are turning the commendation of FUNCTION occuring in the spirit - which is a known language stating good prayer to be a commendable PRACTICE without understanding to either the one praying or listening. His prayer is AUDIBLE as those LISTENING can hear it but can't understand it and neither can the one doing the praying - HE IS CONDEMNING this under the "or else" consequence of violating the principle of edification.


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.


This is the "else" of condemnation which is contrasted to verse 15. This prayer is being condemned not condoned.

 

Yeah, It's floating around Facebook to!:tongue3:

 

What point you miss is that the prayer is good!!!! It just does not edify the others that can not say "amen"...
You have to ignore too much of chapter 14 to come to your conclusion. We agree that tongues should not be done in the church without the interpretation. But it looks like the rest we will not agree on! Because I see praying in the spirit/speaking to God/blessing with the spirit as the same!

 

That is not his point at all. Of course what is said in a language is good - NOTHING WRONG WITH THE CONTENT but it is the PRACTICE of praying a good prayer in a different language without UNDERSTANDING by the one praying and/or the one listening - BOTH are wrong and being condemned.

That is the whole point of this "else" consequence of following the WRONG example in verse 14 and not following the right example in verse 15. IT IS WRONG TO PRAY IN THE SPIRIT by anyone at anytime if edification of the MIND is not included. That is his determined point stated clearly in verse 15. You are taking the "else" condemnation passage and presenting as the example to follow when it is given as the example to be condemned.


12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

Paul's point - The rule of edification MENTAL UNDERSTANDING applied in verses 6-11 is to be applied to the INDIVIDUAL in verse 13

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Paul's Point - The "if" BAD scenario of not following the MENTAL UNDERSTANDING edification rule is here presented as a NEGATIVE example


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.


Paul's Point - The Positive determinate example is now stated IN CONTRAST to verse 14 as the proper application of the rule of edification = MENTAL UNDERSTANDING with whatever is done in Spirit.


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?

Paul's Point - "else" is the alternative to obeying the positive determined practice in verse 15. "else" is the CONSEQUENCE of disobeying Paul's positive example in verse 15. "else" is the contrast to obedience to verse 15. If you don't obey verse 15 to practice MENTAL UNDERSTANDING with all you do "in the Spirit" this will be the consequence.


[B]17 For thou verily givest thanks well,[/B]

Paul's Point - The negative consequence is not to be found in the LANGUAGE CONTENT in the spirit. The pray is said good. The negative consequence is that it is not accompanied by MENTAL UNDERSTANDING in both the one praying and the one listening - IT VIOLATES the law of edification and the positive command by example stated in verse 15. The CONTENT of the prayer does not violate it, but the PRACTICE of the prayer without MENTAL comprehension violates it.

 

The context of chapter 14 is how it is done in the church! Paul did not say anything about when he was not in church when he spoke in tongues. But yet he spoke in tongues more than them all!

 

Paul is addressing the individual use and abuse of whatever is done "in my spirit" and condemns it by anyone at anytime anywhere as wrong if there is no mental comprehension.

Paul used it in a context where mental understanding occurs as in Acts 2. They heard the content of the tongues -

Paul always went to the JEW FIRST then to the gentile. Paul used tongues according to its BIBLICAL design - not in the church (v. 19) but to the LEARNED unbeliever - the Jew - (vv. 20-22). In direct contrast the Corinthians were not using it according to its Biblical design or according to the rule of love or edification and thus Paul spoke in tongues according to its right use MORE THAN ALL of them.

 

You have to add words to come to that conclusion! He did not say he does it the right way more than all of them! He said he speaks in tongues but in church he would rather TEACH in his understanding.

IT shows the difference/contrast in tongues not in his understanding and words with his understanding. It is clear here that tongues in not in his understanding or he would have said in vs. 19 that he wanted to speak in their understanding.

THe purpose of tongues is to magnify God! To do this in church we must have the interpretation for all to be edified! Acts 2 and 10 tell us that they were magnifying God.
"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?" (1 Corinthians 14:16)
Paul also says that praising God with your spirit is tongues...but in the church we must have an interpretation so all can be edified.

If tongues were for another reason then Paul would have used that example. But all through chapter 14 he speaks of praying in the spirit/speaketh in tongues/blessing with the spirit/ speaking to God. That is prayer/praise!