LifeWay private prayer language research disappointing

I haven't seen that research, although there is probably a connection between the instructions on silence for women to the estatic utterances. He clearly indicates that the services were being disrupted.

Estatic utterances were common in some pagan rituals, including among the temple prostitutes of certain sects. The women often had shaved heads as well. As some of these people were converted to Christianity, they may have brought some of the practices into the church. This could be the background for several of Paul's instructions to the Corithians.

As awful as the possible background is, however, it doesn't change the fact that Paul allows for the possibility that the Christian was having a genuine spiritual experience with the PPL and gave instructions for its practice.

I believe it is clear from Chapters 12-14 that Paul would rather they not speak in tongues (estatic utterances), but saw the issue as one where Christian liberty and conscience could decide as long as the church services were not disrupted.

peace to youraying:

 

Ok.........

 

I agree Jerry....if someone wants to take one verse that Paul wrote as a metaphor and argue that it is biblical instruction for the church today?....well then ok

AJ

 

It has always fasinated me that those who proudly proclaim they live by the Bible as God's Holy Word, will go through all sorts of contortions when God's Word doesn't say what they want it to say.

You are mischaracterizing what scripture says, and what I have said about scripture.

Either you believe what scripture says, or you don't. That, too, is a matter of conscience.

As for me, I'll follow God's Word...even when it challenges me to re-evaluate what I believe and why I believe it.

peace to youraying:

 

If you think the jibberish is biblical, by all means go somewhere where it is practiced. Please keep it out of churches that see it as unbiblical(the jibberish). Don't push it on us, go where it is accepted.

 

Actaully, this is completely a falsehood proported by those who haven't done any real study on the issue but biased proof-texting based upon an 'experience' either by themselves or what they have seen. They base their 'assumption' on "why would God give that to them?? They never stop to ask the question "did God really give this to them?"


Let show why I state this:
1. Find once instance in scripture where it is called, refered to or alluded to as a "private prayer language" or even a 'personal prayer language'.

2. Show one instance in scripture it is ever used outside of it's public usage in the church AS WELL AS in the presense of other believers and even non-believers which was also publically done (like we see in the book of Acts).

3. Show one instance in scripture where a gift, any gift of the Holy Spirit is given for the individual alone. (1 Cor 12:7 helps here)

4. Can a man speak in tongues given by God and remain in ignorance of what he/she is speaking? (here 1 Cor 14:"13"-17 comes into play).



These are just 4 basic but core principles in understanding of the gift of tongues however they are 4 of the most side stepped, willfully ignored truths by those who desire to keep their 'experience' as biblcal as possible. Do I believe in tongues? YOU BET! But I also believe that about 98% of the tongues spoken of and seen are unbiblical. Tongues are not needed today as they were in the book of Acts though there are instances even today where we can hear of God's using a person to speak a language they had never previously known to bring a person to the knowledge of Jesus Christ that they would be saved.

Thus with a proper understanding of the gifts of God you will come to a proper understanding of the usage of those gifts and 1 Cor 12:7 and 1 Cor 14:26 (the later part) bring them together in truth of God's purpose for giving such gifts to believers . (that these gifts are for the edifaction of others and not for ones self). Thus by them using 'their' gifts you will be edified just as you using your they to will be edified.

 

You haven't addressed the fact that the Apostle Paul gave instructions for the practice of this "gift". Part of those instructions included I Cor. 14:28 "...but if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God." If he is speaking to himself and to God, it seems that would qualify as a private conversation.

The Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of Holy Spirit and making it part of God's Holy Word, gave instructions to Christians who were practicing "estatic utterances".

No amount of distortion will ever change God's Word to make it conform to your traditions and preconceived notions.

If Paul, under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, was willing to consider this a matter of Christian conscience and Christian liberty, so should we.

peace to youraying:

 

The only thing I am pushing is the fact that scripture is the foundation for what we believe and practice. Some people can accept that, and some cannot.

I have had enough.

peace to youraying:

 

Are you saying that you can't prove a 'Private prayer language'??

I have addressed it. It had to be properly and in order not in proper order. Properly - being appropriate to the purpose or conforming to established standards.

This shows they were not using them properly nor where they being used in an orderly fashion. No one disputes the gift of tongues we dispute Biblically the contrived man-centered usage of it today for personal edification which is compeletly against scripture (1 Cor 12:7 and 1 Cor 14:26).
Also in the fact that no one who speaks in the unknown tongues knows what they are saying, which is again against Pauls teaching regarding tongues.

 

What I am against, I have plainly stated. I am against the unbiblical stuff we hear today.

"nkdjfhif dishvpuioahgvfg oisdhvvbhvbv nuiZSHdfvivb jkghhgzkjv"

That's about what it amounts to and makes just about as much sense. In the Bible it was always a known language, known by the person hearing it and interpertating it. It was never the "hogwash" that is in churches today.

 

:laugh: :laugh:

That made me laugh.

I agree.

 

Jerry, that was addressed to canadyjd.

I am in agreement with you and for 4 main reasons (though not all) that I have already cited showing what is done today in most churches is unbiblical.

 

As has been pointed out, Paul said that tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but for nonbelievers, unbelieving Isaiah as it is in Isaiah 28:11-12. Tongues was also a sign to authenticating apostolic authority.
Paul points out in 1 Cor. 14 the miss use of Spiritual gifts, in 1 Cor. 14:16-14 Paul was showing that the tongue speaker was being selfish, ignoring the rest of the congregation.
If the purpose of tongues is a sign to unbelieving Israel, any time tongues is used and they aren't translated wouldn't be correct. That would mean the ecstatic speech in a private prayer is to force a meaning that isn't in the Scriptures that isn't there.
If I recall my church history correctly, no where is the gift of tongues found or alluded to in post Apostolic Fathers writing. Then came around 1901 Charles Parham's Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas where Agnes Ozman began to speak in tongues and they said it was Chinese but when checked out it wasn't anything. Then Parham went to Houston, Tx. and conducted a Bible School, his students wrote down their foreign languages, but when checked out, it was just scratching on paper. Then came William Seymour and the Azusa Street Mission in L.A., then the tongues movement was on the move. Frank Bartleman is given a lot of credit for selling the tongues movement by his book of 1925, "How Pentecost came to Los Angeles."

 

Yea, I know you directed it at him. I was just restating what I was against in this tongues debate.
:thumbs:

 

Apparently, it cannot be proved or disproved. That is probably why Paul gave instructions concerning its practice, essentially limiting it to a personal discourse between the person and God.

Paul did not make a specific statement that the estatic utterance was not an actual communication with God. His concern was for the disruption of the fellowship.

It was not edifying to others, making it inferior. It was self-centered, making it inferior. It disrupted the fellowship, making it inferior. It would make people think you are insane, making it inferior. It did nothing to further the cause of Christ in the world (unlike proclamation of the gospel), making it inferior.

At the end, however, Paul conceded the possibility that it was a legitimate communication with God since he gave intructions for its practice.

He did not say "if you think that jibberish is talking to God, then you are not welcome here!"

You have not addressed the fact that Paul gave instructions for its private use ("let him talk to himself and God").

That is what is at issue here. The "private use" of tongues. That gives the individual the responsibility of determining whether what is occurring is "proper" or not. That falls under the sphere of Christian liberty and Christian conscience.

peace to youraying:

 

Wrong, and that is a very poor understanding of the scripture you are trying twist out of context to fit an opinion. (BTW - it has been dispoved)
1. Tongues have nothing to do with the Spirit of God praying through you. When the Spirit makes intercession he does not need nor does he use you but He does this with groanings that can not be uttered - (meaning no air passing over the lips). -Rom 8:26.

2. Vs 2 in no way is making the statement that the person speaking in tongues is praying (as in a private prayer language) to God. You have to take a huge leap of logic (even leaving logic) to come up with the supposition. I'm not trying to be rude here but I know that is how it is coming accross, so I appoligize the way it is reading. However, this passage does not state they are praying but speaking. Secondly, the Paul states that since no one understands what he is saying (not praying) the only person who benifits is God because what he is saying is meaningless to the others. If you will notice the very first thing Paul actually does is show them that they are not using this gift for the purpose God give it - to benifit or edify the body (1 Cor 12:7). Therefore Paul states let the message (not prayer) remain silent (between you and the Lord).

Thus you see in verse 3 the word "but.." showing a comparison being brought forth in the manner in which tongues was being used and not the gift of tongues itself.

3. You will also note the same type of wording is used a little fruther down illistrating the point I previously gave that it is not a prayer language that you are praying between you and God but is empty words rattled into the air.

Now why did Paul not state you are speaking to God iwhen no one understands you like in verse 2 but instead stated they are speaking into the air. Because the intent of Paul was not to say it is a private prayer language but that what was being done is meaningless and unprofitable according to the purpose for which the gifts are given.

Again, read the scripture in it's context and stop trying to proof-text it out of context. Chapter 12 established that the gifts were given to benifit the body or the Church and was not for self edification. In chapter 14 he is rebuking them for the abuse of it (as a status symbol) AND ignorance regarding their usage of it. Thus his beginning in chapter 12 "brethren, I would not have you stay ignorant regarding spiritual gifts". What Paul was doing was first explaining what it was for and the how it was to be used so that everything would be done properly AND in order (regarding the disruption of fellowship)

Again, you miss the entire point of the chapter here. It is inferior only because it only edifies when there is an interpreter. But if you have an interpreter it is then elevated to the same status as that of prophesy which everyone was permitted to do. You seem to forget or intentionally ignore the fact that Paul states he will not pray in a tongue unless it is undstood by him nor will he sing in one because (and this the point ) his 'understanding' is unfruitful. Tongues without understanding of the language does the speaker absolutely no good and has absolutely NO benifit to them - unless they understand. Which is why Paul states if you speak in a tongue you do not understand pray that you will understand. God the Holy Spirit did not add that to get some peoples hopes up, but meant for us to know we should know what we speak and if not pray that He will make it so. It isn't a potential possibility to understand but a statement regarding the will of God that we are to understand the tongue we are speaking in.

Again incorrect. But just in case, please reveal this verse my bible is missing.

No where, not once did Paul address any such 'private usage'. There is NO instructions on it's private usage. Everthing Paul makes reference to here is about being in public and for everyone to hear. ie:

Speaking in tongues without anyone to interpret will make people think you are crazy because you will sound like an idiot to them who is just spuing childish gibberish.


What Paul constantly is addresses here is speaking in a tongue and not praying. When Paul speaks of praying in a tongue he specificies it is to be done with understanding of that tongue for it to be of any profit to churches edification first and then to your own.

 

Since it is your thread brother, I will not continue with the 'back and forth'.
I agree also with the scripture that it is a sign gift for the lost, specifically to Isreal.