If I was to stand on a corner (which I do not believe the Bible says do) and speak in tongues ( a language I do not know or have learned). What profit would it do UNLESS one passing by understood me in there own language?
Well, I was strongly against the manifestation of the Holy Spirit until 7 years ago. I was raised Baptist all my life and was taught against them...but never knew exactly why or what they were. Most pastors avoid those chapters!
I have no problem with Peter speaking to the crowd..but he was explaining what was happening and Preaching. Tongues and prophecy is not preaching.
Charismatic Errors Listed
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by John of Japan, Sep 24, 2012.
Page 8 of 14
-
Tongues means languages. They were actual known languages, not known to the one who spoke them but known to the ones who heard them. They always needed an interpreter. The message was the same as the prophet. It was for the edification of the congregation, which is forth-telling the word of God. It had the same type of message as a prophet. It was a sign to the Jews, and a sign to the unbelieving Jew in particular. It was one of the signs of the apostles. It was used as a vehicle of revelation, just as prophecy was. They both served the same purpose. Since revelation is now complete and the apostles have passed away the sign is no longer needed and has been done away with. Thus you don't see anyone today practicing this gift--Biblically. -
Concerning the above, actually experienced that once: the Pastor asked a visiting missionary to open the service with prayer in spanish, and then repeat it in english, but apparently he did not hear the latter request. He prayed in spanish, then sat down, lol. This is a good example of how it is necessary to understand what is being communicated in order for participation. We cannot unite in prayer if we do not know what is being said.
Back to the point:
1 Corinthians 14
King James Version (KJV)
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?
Paul makes the point, "What good is it if I speak in tongues either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?"
This would, I would think, make it clear that when tongues were employed, it was for purpose involving the word of God, whether (at this time) it was divinely revealed to the speaker (such as was the case for the Apostles and Disciples, i.e., Paul's imprisonment foretold) or if it involved previously revealed truth (such as we see Peter employ and then exopund).
This verse seems to clearly place Paul's teaching as a rebuke. Beginning in ch.12, he makes the case that not all members are the same. Chapter 13 carries on the same tenor which is, "What good is it if it is not sincere?" Chapter 14 concludes the theme with definite statement of rebuke coupled with questions which demand a negative answer.
The KJV translators I believe, inserting the word unknown, show their ability by distinguishing between when the true gift is being mentioned or the counterfeit is in view. The Corinthians would have been familiar with ecstatic speech, the Oracle of Delphi being a prominent example. Taking into consideration the underlying reason for the teaching in these three chapters, we can see that this is certainly not straightforward instruction without correction. Something was going on in the Church there that Paul did not approve of, nor did he promote it.
Of course, that is my position, lol.
Even as when Peter preaches, he targets Messianic scripture. Then expounds.
But, back then, it would be surprising to find locals speaking a language if one was from a far country.
And this is one reason the gift of tongues is not a necessary gift today. Because our world has grown smaller. More advanced. Languages are taught in schools.
I have heard stories of missionaries speaking to an audience and those that did not speak their language understanding. I do not know if this is "urban (so to speak...lol) legend" or if it is true. But that is what I would expect to be the case when the genuine gift is employed. I think it likely that as we see in scripture exceptions to general rules (such as a woman in a place of leadership, for example) and that from time to time the Lord may use these gifts sporadically in the field, even as healings are not the norm but we from time to time see miraculous healings. But what we don't see is a consistent employment as we do in the early Church. Even before the New Testament was compiled, we see Paul leaving Trophimus in Miletum sick. Why did he not heal him?
One thing that is interesting is you mentioning the people being drawn by the noise, as opposed to how I have viewed this, which is, they were drawn by what was being said by the disciples themselves. I did look at some commentators and ou are correct, this is also held by even some that I conside to be among the better teachers, such as John MacArthur.
But (and you knew that was coming, right? lol), looking at the greek we see phone translated as "sound" 8 times and voice...131 times, though I am sure that a few of these speak of the sound of an instrument.
Another thing that came to mind was that if it was the noise (a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind) that drew them, how then could they have heard the disciples...lol.
But some of the translations do indeed point to the sound itself, so this was interesting to me. I still hold to the position that it was that which was being spoken by the disciples, as it would seem to me that the "sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind" would have, like the "cloven tongues like as of fire" would have been for just a short time. I guess it is possible that initially a crowd could have been drawn due to the sound, then that escalated by the speaking of the disciples.
Just throwing that in there.
Continued... -
Response part 2
As Paul makes the point that if he speaks in tongues yet does not involve the word of God concerning the aspects mentioned earlier, then nothing is accomplished. There is always a reason for God empowering someone with a gift, it is never...without reason.
Then he goes on to say:
1 Corinthians 14
King James Version (KJV)
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?
Just as in chapter 13, we have a "If it does not involve..." statement, here, the focus upon that which is spoken. "Every sound must be for a reason, and the sound must be distinct so that it is recognized."
He goes to the lenght of saying, "...even inanimate objects that are used to produce distinguished sounds must make those distinct sounds so they are recognized." This is reminiscent of what he has just said in ch.13:
1 Corinthians 13
King James Version (KJV)
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
"Though I speak clearly and eloquently, if it is bereft of love...it is no better than noise." Likewise, the flip-side is equally important to the equation, "It is a necessity that if I speak, I speak in words that can be understood, for what good is it to speak if it cannot be understood?"
And he says exactly that in the next verse:
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.
Not...speaking to God, but, speaking to...nothing. It is of no use. It accomplishes nothing. Speech is for the purpose of communication, no matter who is speaking, or who is listening.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
We can include in the "none of them," the gift of languages. And especially the gift of languages. For this is a sovereignly given gift from God Himself, and we would not expect the Lord to give a gift that does not accomplish that which is was given for. This would be akin to giving the gift of healing and the blind man's vision remaining blurry. Or a lame man left to walk on crutches. This would not be healing, right? It would just be an improvement.
This does not mean we have to waver in that which we are convicted of concerning our views, but, as we learn it is not a matter of "I'm right your wrong," but, "God is right and I pray He teaches me properly," then we can better be open to His leading and guidance, I believe. Sometimes it will not fail but that when we stand firm upon an issue those of opposing views may take it as aggressive, thier feelings might be hurt, or we may come across as arrogant...that is just going to happen. But, it has been a goal of mine to learn how to communicate to others in a way which leads to a profitable encounter for both of us. Because we disagree on a topic does not mean I have to hate you (and then try to show the love of Christ for another stranger, lol), nor does it mean that I should question the salvation of everyone that disagrees with me, lol, nor that I think that doctrinal perfection is a pre-requisite for another to be my brother or sister in Christ.
We all have a lot to learn, no? lol
Someone on here said the other day, "The more I learn, the more I learn how little I know," and this is true. Most of us have barely scratched the surface of what there is to know, and how we are to apply even that we do know in an attempt to live pleasing before God.
Shall we say "Lord I am glad I am not as that man?" Or, "I am the chief of sinners, Lord forgive me my sin?"
The latter has more application in my life than the former, and one thing we should remember is that every word will we give an account of, and that for us, if we expect the Lord to show mercy to us, then we must be found faithful to show mercy to others.
Okay, have to go, but I will leave you with a favorite verse of mine:
Malachi 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.
If I don't get back today, I will try to get back sometime this week, but I have a pretty horrible week ahead (lol), so we will see.
God bless. -
Prophecy is divinely inspired and anointed utterance; a supernatural proclamation in a known language. It is the manifestation of the Spirit of God-not of intellect (1 Cor. 12:7), and it may be possessed and operated by all who have the infilling of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 14:31).
You are confusing the gift of prophecy and the office of the prophet..they are not the same.
There is a ministry of the prophet, but not everyone is a prophet. To stand in the office of prophet, one must have a consistent manifestation of at least two or the revelation gifts (word of wisdom, word of knowledge, or discerning of spirits) plus prophecy.
NOTE: The words preach and prophesy come from two entirely different Greek words. To "preach" means to proclaim, announce, cry, or tell. Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world, and PREACH the gospel.." Mark 16:15...He did not say to prophesy the Gospel!!
The word prophecy means to "bubble up, to flow forth, or to cause to drop like rain." Teaching and preaching are preplanned, but prophecy is not.
The Bible tells us that we are to "Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things." 1 Thess. 5:20-21. When a prophecy is given, we are to test it and hold on toe what is good in it.
Prophecy is not prediction!
Prophecy is not the intepretaion of tongues! -
You are absolutely wrong. You quoted from John 16, where Jesus gives the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter when he shall come. It has nothing to do with prophecy whatsoever. Prophecy was not to edify, exhort, and comfort. You are wrong in that assessment.
It was of the intellect, however a God-given intellect. It wasn't jibberish.
Jeremiah 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Jeremiah 1:11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou? And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree.
Jeremiah 3:12 Go and toward the north, and say, Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.
It is evident that prophets proclaim what the Lord says to them.
Acts 21:10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.
12 And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.
--This is prediction of a prophet. It came true. Prophecy is part prediction.
-
That said....
I agree that Paul is rebuking the Corinthian church, but he is not forbidding tongues. He just explains if they are going to pray in the spirit do not do it without interpretation..so the whole church will be edified. If I was to sing a song in Spanish in an English speaking church..how would that uplift the church?
As far as Paul and Trophimus...
Based on 2 Timothy 4:20, it is sometimes assumed that Paul had "lost" his healing abilities because he couldn't heal Trophimus. In that verse, the Greek word translated as "sick" is astheneo, and Paul used this Greek word 17 other times in the New Testament. Notice that with the exception of a single passage, Paul always used this Greek word to mean "weak." Here are the verses: Romans 4:19, 8:3, 14:1-2, 21 (literally, "is weak"), 1 Corinthians 8:9, 11-12, 11:20-21, 28-29, 12:10, 13:3-4, 9, Philippians 2:25-27.
Philippians 2:25-27 is the only other place in all of Paul's writings where astheneo is translated as "ill" instead of "weak," but having an illness can certainly leave a person feeling weak. If Trophimus was weak for some reason (but not actually sick), or if he was sick but received healing, then this passage doesn't support the idea that healing "died out" in the first century. But if Trophimus was sick, and if he never received healing, then this is no different than when people today don't receive healing (for various reasons). Either way, this passage doesn't prove that healing "died out" in the first century or that Paul had "lost" his healing abilities.
-
What Peter was referring to in Joel was a progress of how it would unfold...and like you said..not all of it has been fulfilled yet!
[quote}Again, I would just ask that you give this some consideration. It makes perfect sense that this gift would have been of immense value to those that crossed borders and preached the Gospel.[/quote] I do consider all that is posted! My prayer in my journey through this (especially coming from Cessationalism background) is that God would not allow me to be led astray...that I was seeking Him/His truth!
I will also add..the more I learn..I have more questions than answers too! -
-
Here it is along with context in the WEB:
1 Corinthians 14:3 But he who prophesies speaks to men for their edification, exhortation, and consolation.
4 He who speaks in another language edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the assembly.
The contrast is in relation to "other languages." The gift of prophesy would edify the church or assembly because the gift of languages would not. The gift of languages was a completely useless gift if it did not have interpretation. Furthermore, it was a gift to be used only in the local church, God's assembly.
What does the reference you post say:
1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after love, and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. (WEB)
--First, and most importantly, follow after love.
--Second, desire the spiritual gifts (not all of them). See chapter 12.
--Third, Especially desire prophesy. This is in contrast to languages. The entire chapter is a contrast between languages and prophecy. The desire to prophecy is always put in contrast to the desire to speak in another language. The latter was a carnal desire. Were they all able to prophesy. The obvious answer to that is NO. Paul had already made that clear.
1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all miracle workers?
No, not all are prophets, and not all can prophesy. As I calculated, maybe one in ten if that would have been able to prophesy. The gifts were distributed among all the members. Study chapter 12. Each member had a different gift. Not everyone could speak in tongues; not everyone could prophesy. -
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
And another question you avoided which I will ask again: Can you give me one reason why God would have them pray in a language other than their own when He understands people perfectly well in their own language?
The Greek word for "magnify" there is megaluno. It is clearly used in Acts 5:13 for speaking about other humans, the apostles, and again in Luke 1:58 where God magnifies Elisabeth, and again in 2 Cor. 10:15 for humans. So it doesn't mean to praise God in prayer, it simply means to praise someone.
So in Acts 10, once again you have no proof that they were speaking to God with their tongues. There also they were speaking to humans, telling how great God is.
Now, if you believe God is omniscient, I'll ask again. Why would God give a different language to pray to Him? What is the logic in that? Why would He want us to pray to Him in a different language? Or to put it a different way, if tongues is only talking to God, what does He gain from your tongues?
"Exactly. Tongues and prophecy are different. In other words, the tongues were the means by which they prophesied. God gave them tongues to enable them to prophesy to people who did not understand their language. They spoke miraculously with other languages the wonderful works of God. This is very clearly prophesying.
It's like saying, "He raised the gun and shot the deer." The gun was the tool used to shoot the deer. So, "They spoke with tongues and prophesied." The tongues were the means by which they prophesied.
The Greek for "other tongues" in Acts 2:4 is, eteraiV glwssaiV. This is in the dative case, and is what is called in Greek grammar the 'dative of means,' or in the big advanced grammar by Daniel Wallace, the "dative of manner." Wallace says, "The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 161). So Acts 2:4 could be translated, "They spoke by means of tongues." The Greek grammar clearly shows that I am right here.
Acts 19:6 is very similar. Tongues is in the dative case, and is a dative of means, showing how they prophesied. It could be translated, 'They spoke and prophesied by means of tongues.'"
-
Megaluno: 3170 megaluvnw Megaluno (meg-al-oo'-no);
Word Origin: Greek, Verb
from (3173)
to make great, magnify
metaph. to make conspicuous
to deem or declare great
to esteem highly, to extol, laud, celebrate
to get glory and praise
What you keep ignoring is 1 Cor. 14 where it says that tongues IS SPEAKING TO GOD! PRAYING IN THE SPIRIT IS TONGUES.
THis is what you said:Furthermore, yours is a completely illogical interpretation. Give me one reason why God would have them pray in a language other than their own when He understands people perfectly well in their own language. The only possible reason for tongues to be given in Acts 2 is for the disciples to speak to other people. God doesn't need our languages in the slightest! He can read our thoughts before we think them.
I just came back and said if he can read our thoughts why pray at all? He can read our thoughts but whether we pray in the spirit or pray with our understanding ...he can read our thoughts either way.
-
"These truths are self-evident."
Acts 12:5 Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.
Acts 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.
They were praying for Peter, not in tongues, but praying fervently for his deliverance and the Lord answered their prayers. Note the "church" the assembly at the house of Mary, the mother of John Mark.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Forgive me, I'm not trying to be condescending, but I really don't think you are understanding some of the points I'm making. Maybe you read them and then posted late at night or something. So I'll try again.
So again, the question. In 10:46 it does not say they magnifying God to Him directly. So how do you know they were magnifying God directly to God? Why could they not be magnifying God to other people?
And for goodness sake, don't send me back to Acts 2. That would be circular reasoning. You can't prove something in Acts 2 from 10 and then the same thing from 10 to 2.
Do angels pray? Yet they were praising God in Luke 2:13. In Judges 16:24 the Philistines praised their idol god by saying, "Our god hath delivered into our hand our enemy" (meaning Samson), but they were not praying to their false god at the time.
-
Here is documented evidence that healing miracles still take place today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuQ4SJWECBY -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Once again, here is the direct Word of God which you are rejecting.
Tongues and prophecy are different. In other words, the tongues were the means by which they prophesied. God gave them tongues to enable them to prophesy to people who did not understand their language. They spoke miraculously with other languages the wonderful works of God. This is very clearly prophesying.
It's like saying, "He raised the gun and shot the deer." The gun was the tool used to shoot the deer. So, "They spoke with tongues and prophesied." The tongues were the means by which they prophesied.
The Greek for "other tongues" in Acts 2:4 is, eteraiV glwssaiV. This is in the dative case, and is what is called in Greek grammar the 'dative of means,' or in the big advanced grammar by Daniel Wallace, the "dative of manner." Wallace says, "The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 161). So Acts 2:4 could be translated, "They spoke by means of tongues." The Greek grammar clearly shows that I am right here.
Acts 19:6 is very similar. Tongues is in the dative case, and is a dative of means, showing how they prophesied. It could be translated, 'They spoke and prophesied by means of tongues.'" -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
The first time I saw Ernest Angley "healling" I thought it was bizzarre--hitting people on the forehead and knocking them down? Weird! Then there was Oral and his 900 foot Jesus. Even weirder! -
It is impossible to please God without faith.
1 Cor. 14:14 says that when I pray in tongues my spirit prays, but my understanding ( we understand with our mind) is unfruitful (does not benefit our minds).
Keep in mind that the Holy Spirit isn't the one praying. He is helping you pray by giving you utterance in our spirit. You ask how does it glorify God? I think it is the faith in what the Word says! As I am praying I have faith that the Holy Spirit is praying through me the perfect will of God. This is not blind faith, because His Word tells us that it is by our most HOly Faith that we pray in the spirit. ...and when he gives you the interpretation...it is awesome! (1 Cor. 14:13 tells us to pray for our own tongue interpretation)
I usually then pray what He has shown me in English (my own understanding). Remember 1 Cor. 14:15 says to pray with both!
I could explain even more...but again if you do not believe it is prayer then you will not receive anything else I post concerning this.
God gets the glory because of our faith.
note: It is the foolishness of this world that confounds the wise. What do you think if you saw someone spit in mud and put it on someones eyes to heal them. Our ways are not His ways!
You could talk about your wife all day and yes! if it was good things said about her, I would say you would be praising her TO OTHER PEOPLE.
#1 "Who were the people speaking to before the crowd gathered in Acts 2?"
#2 When we compare scripture with scripture 1 Cor. 14:2 tells us who we are speaking to in tongues...God. That is prayer. Why would God say tongues was speaking to God in Cor. and contradict Himself in the other scriptures? Tongues do not benefit others UNLESS there is an interpretation.
#3 Tongues is a language unlearned. THe Holy Spirit gives the utterance, right? That is why it is called "manifestation of the Holy Spirit"..because it is from the HOly Spirit, not man..it is supernatural! What we pray we do not understand ourself. If we understood then there would be no need to pray for interpretation.
Tongues were a manifetation of the Holy Spirit being poured out on the Day of Pentecost! Peter said that in His sermon addressing the people (SAID TO THEM). What they saw was the promise spoken by Joel.."I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (this is still going on today because there are still people coming to know the Lord). Jesus also told his disciple to wait for it in Acts 1:8. Once it was poured out..it is now availble to all of us if we believe! -
Page 8 of 14