Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Great point.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

TR,
Chapter 14 when Paul says he would that we ALL spake in tongues is he referencing the "Gift of Tongues" or a sign they should expect of the Spirit indwelling?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

TR, I love you too, in spite of your condescending attitude sometimes!:gotcha

You do make a good point.

However, repentance has ALWAYS been a part of salvation, even before the Holy Ghost was poured out. It started at an altar of sacrifice. It's a given that one cannot be saved without repentance, and that concept is clearly spelled out time and time again in scripture, i.e. when JEsus said "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish".

Jesus never mentioned tongues in connection with salvation.

So, does speaking in tongues really hold as much of a "given" status when it comes to salvation as repentance does?

And, if - in your mind - it does, then why is it that we don't hold folks to the Book of Acts benchmark of speaking in "other" tongues as the Spirit gives utterance, rather than them speaking in an "unknown" tongue?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Mike

I also like TR because he takes his beliefs seriously. I have also noticed that his writing style can demark a certain conotation towards him being superior.

I, however, give him the benefit of the doubt, and believe he does not do it intentionally.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I like him too, BK............when I first started posting with TR I misinterpreted his posts and took a bit of offense. But, as I started reading more of his thoughts, I realize that he is a brilliant guy, and he DOES feel strongly about his beliefs.

We still like to jab each other now and then, but I don't take it personally any more, and I find that I've learned a lot from him!

(But don't tell him that, or he'll get the big head:gotcha)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Well, as I said in my previous posts to Mike, I believe context of the entire chapter makes it pretty clear, beginning from the very first verse:

1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

4He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5I would that ye all spake with tongues but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

He is speaking about the "gift of tongues" here; he is not referring to the sign of one initially receiving baptism/indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

To paraphrase it, I think Paul's meaning in verse 5 could be accurately summed up this way:

"I'd be happy if you all had the gift of tongues, but I'd be even happier if you all had the gift of prophecy; because a person who prophesies is greater (that is, of more value to the church) than one who has the gift of tongues, unless he has the gift of interpretation also, for the edification of the body."

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

So, then when someone speaks in tongues in prayer it is the gift of tongues, EXCEPT if it is the first (initial) time he speaks - in that case it is not the gift of tongues?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I appreciate that, BJ.
I'm dont consider myself superior to anyone. But I do know that whenever you "put the smackdown" on someone's arguments, it can rub them the wrong way at times, even when you take great pains to ensure that you're attacking the argument, not the person.

I also think though, that when you shoot down a person's argument, sometimes that person's bruised ego might cause them to play the "Oh, dont be so superior about it" card as a way of firing back. You cant really prevent that; that's just a part of the territory on internet forums.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Yes sir.
If a person is praying in tongues, that is definitely a manifestation of the gift of tongues. But for someone who is being filled with the Holy Ghost....it is the gift of the Holy Spirit they are receiving, evidenced by the (initial) speaking in tongues. But not everyone who receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, even though they speak in tongues then, is receiving the gift of tongues at the same time.

To use myself as an example, I'm like millions of believers who speaks/prays in tongues at will. That is a manifestation of the gift of tongues, which we sometimes refer to our "prayer language". (In my case, this didnt come to me until a few years after I initially received the gift/baptism of the Spirit and spoke in tongues)
... But I have never given a "message" in tongues [with accompanying interpretation] as other people I know. That is also a separate manifestation of the gift. Paul addresses both of these in 1 Cor 14.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Thank you for responding.

I am going to be transparent here and just say this is very confusing to me.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

(Well, I'm convinced that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence that someone has received the Holy Spirit. I'm sure you've probably seen/heard the arguments used to make that case, and I dont particularly feel like going down that road right now... so I'll just leave that there. )

But anyway...Mike, as to your second question, I think you're definitely overthinking this.

Lets take it back to what Jesus said in Mk 16: "These signs shall follow them that believe....they shall speak with new tongues..."

So whether its "other" tongues, or "unknown" tongues... whether its the tongues of men or of angels, it really doesnt matter. It's still speaking in new tongues -- that is "new" at least to the person speaking.

(That's what makes it a "sign"... because the person is speaking a language that is new to him, one that he's never learned. )

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

No problem.

David K Bernard, deals with this topic very well in his book, The New Birth.

There's an online version available here:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...al/New-Ch9.htm

Hope that helps.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

The literal translation of Mark 16 is "they shall speak in new languages" and it doesn't refer to an unknown tongue, it's referring to preaching the gospel in every tongue.

Let's address this "prayer language" because that's one that I've studied a bit more.

Here's what Paul said about praying in an unknown tongue:

13Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.

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

I've heard people talk about intercession, and how that is praying with words, or groanings that can't be understood.

But, Paul seems to be saying that just praying in an unknown tongue is not fruitful, even when the spirit is praying - IF there is no interpretation.

Now, I'll grant you that there are two different instances of tongues in the Scripture, as we have already discussed: the initial sign to those gathered in Jerusalem, which we've established is "another" tongue, or known language; and the gift of tongues, which should have an interpretation.

But, nowhere do I see that anyone is encouraged to simply pray in tongues without an interpreter.

Your thoughts?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Michael,

I'll answer the question I asked you, "Did God take the gift of tongues away from me?"

No, I never had the gift of tongues. I spoke in tongues when I was initially filled with the Holy Spirit which is the evidence of tongues. The gift of tongues is different from the evidence of tongues. AFTER a believer is filled with the Spirit THEN God gives gifts according to His will. The gift of tongues is one of these gifts.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

So, when you received the Holy Ghost, Miz, did you speak with an "other" tongue, i.e. a language unknown to you, but understood by someone in the congregation?

Or did you speak with an "unknown" tongue?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Hello TRFrance,

Brother, I have a question: when you are referring to "praying in tongues" (prayer language), are you referring to that activity which the believer does between himself and God, which is not broadcast to the assembly, or are you referring to a message in tongues, as in "tongues and interpretation", which is broadcast to the assembly?

If the former (private prayer), then how does this qualify as a gift of the Spirit, seeing as Paul instructed that the gifts of the Spirit were for the edifying of the entire Church (1Cor 14:12)?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Hi Mizpeh,

I believe you are correct in this. :)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Hi Dave,

Here's another scripture that seems to say that Paul speaks in tongues (meaning the gift of tongues) apart from the church.

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

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Mike, I'm not sure where you find this distinction? Unknown tongue, other tongue....what's the difference?

I was in my flat in England and I was praying with a friend. I spoke in an language that I didn't know and she didn't know it either.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I find the distinction in the book of Acts, Miz.

In Acts 2, the Bible specifically states that every person who was speaking in tongues was speaking in "another" tongue, and that the crowd who gathered was amazed because they heard the infilled speaking clearly in known languages:

4And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

The initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost was that folks who were monolingual clearly spoke in different languages to preach the gospel.

It was not the "unknown" tongue that Paul speaks of in I Corinthians 14.

So, can I safely assume that, if we are following the Book of Acts pattern, when one is filled with the Holy Ghost they should speak with a known tongue as a witness for someone who is witnessing this event who understands the language in which the infilled is speaking?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Hi Mizpeh,

The answer is "yes", and here's why:

"3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.
4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. (Ro 15:3-4)

In verse 3, Paul is quoting Ps 69:9, which is neither one of the 613 commandments, a narrative, nor a direct didactic passage. And yet he goes on to say in verse 4 that those things written in the "scriptures" are for our learning (Gr. didaskalian, from didaskoo: "to teach").

From the sense of the Romans passage, we see Paul is not specifically referring to only the Psalms as containing didactic value, but the "scriptures" as a whole- all of God's Word.


Again, Paul in 2Tim 3:10-17 charges his protege Timothy to "continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." (vs. 14).

What was it that Timothy had learned from Paul? Didactic teaching only? No, "But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me." (vs. 10-11).

IOW, Timothy learned from Paul's "life experience", which Paul himself catalogues along with "doctrine", etc., and which Luke records in the book of Acts.

Notice also that Paul commends Timothy's study from childhood of "the holy scriptures" (vs. 15- meaning all of God's Word, not simply specific OT didactic passages), which are able to make him "wise unto salvation". This is why Paul concludes in verse 16 that because "all scripture is given by inspiration of God", that all of it is profitable for:

1)- doctrine

2)- reproof

3)- correction

4)- instruction in righteousness

So then, "all scripture" (including narrative) works toward the end goal of making one "wise unto salvation" (vs. 15), and equipped to perform "all good works" (vs. 17). :)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Mizpeh,

I guess my original question still stands: how is Paul's "speaking in tongues more than ye all" (IOW, private prayer language) edifying the Church? As Paul stated in vs. 12, the gifts of the Spirit are for the edifying of the Church. No gift of the Spirit is for private use, nor for private benefit, as Paul states in 1Cor 12:7-

"But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal ("for the common good"- NASB).

If all the gifts are to edify the Church, then this would include the "gift of tongues".

But Paul contrasts this against the individual who speaks in an unknown tongue which edifies only himself (vs. 4). This instance of tongues- one who speaks to "himself" and not the Church- cannot be the "gift of tongues", for it does not edify the Church as a whole, only the individual believer.

Did all that make sense? :)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

What is the "gift of tongues"? 1 Cor 12 lists "Divers kinds of tongues" and the "interpretation of tongues", but no "gift of tongues". When people say "gift of tongues" are they referring to the two "tongues" listed in 1 Cor. 12? Paul explains the correct usage of "tongues" in Chapter 14. To understand this, one keeds to understand the different (divers) kinds of tongues Paul refers to.

1) Unknown tongue- Commonly referred to as "prayer language" or "praying in the Spirit". (1 Cor 14:2, 4. 14-15)

2) Prophetic tongues- The "giving out a message in tongues", so common in Pentecostal churches, is directly related to "the gift of prophecy". (14: 23:24) A person stands and delivers a message in tongues to the church that is to be interpreted. (NOTE: 1Cr 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue pray that he may interpret. The one that speaks in tongues should pray that he or she may interpret the message- however, at times, one speaks in tongues, another person interpretes because "the interpreation of tongues" is a different gift as "divers kinds of tongues)

To understand this gift of "divers kinds of tongues" we should also include what we refer to as "the initial evidence", a term, I should add that isn't found in the Bible. Most Pentecostals believe one speaks in other tongues at the inception of the Holy Ghost as shown in Acts 2:4. Cornelius' household "spoke in tongues" and by this Peter knew that had recieved the Holy Ghost (Acts 10)

So here we have 3 "kinds of tongues

1. "Other tongues " (Acts 2:4) "The intial evidence"
2. "Unknown tongues" (1 Cor 14:2- Spiritual prayer language.
3. "Prophetic tongues "- addressed to others, to be interpreted.

Now, back to "divers kinds of tongues"- Most Pentecostals believe all who recieve the HG speaks with "other tongues (1). However, Paul makes it clear that all do not speak in "unknown tongues" (ie., "prayer language" (2) [1Cr 12:30]. Then there are times when a message is given out in tongues, which Paul relates to as "prophecy". This is to be interpreted (3).

Now the question- While I find no biblical reference to the term, "gift of tongues" I do realize Mizpeh and others are referring to the more biblical term "divers (different) kinds of tongues". Therefore, wouldn't the gift of "divers kinds of tongues" be the ability to operate in two or more of the three types of "tongues" Paul speaks of? (ie, "other tongues, unknown tongues and/ or prophetic tongues)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Very well stated, Dave.

I've done a study on tongues on more than one occasion, and from all I can gather, Paul was ALWAYS referring to "another tongue", i.e., a language that someone, somewhere, could understand - not an entirely unknown language.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5Now I wish that you might all speak in [unknown] tongues, but more especially [I want you] to prophesy (to be inspired to preach and interpret the divine will and purpose). He who prophesies [who is inspired to preach and teach] is greater (more useful and more important) than he who speaks in [unknown] tongues, unless he should interpret [what he says], so that the church may be edified and receive good [from it].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

9Just so it is with you; if you in the [unknown] tongue speak words that are not intelligible, how will anyone understand what you are saying? For you will be talking into empty space!

10There are, I suppose, all these many [to us unknown] tongues in the world [somewhere], and none is destitute of [its own power of] expression and meaning.

11But if I do not know the force and significance of the speech (language), I shall seem to be a foreigner to the one who speaks [to me], and the speaker who addresses [me] will seem a foreigner to me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
22Thus [unknown] tongues are meant for a [supernatural] sign, not for believers but for unbelievers [on the point of believing], while prophecy (inspired preaching and teaching, interpreting the divine will and purpose) is not for unbelievers [on the point of believing] but for believers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, from these passages taken from the Amplified Bible, I am led to the following conclusions:

1.) Paul is making no distinction between the "Gift of tongues" and the "initial sign", since both are to be known languages that are edifying to the unbeliever, since they are a sign to him or her that he or she will understand.

2.) Paul places very little significance on the "prayer language" that cannot be understood by the hearer.

3.) The sole purpose for speaking in tongues appears to be as a sign for the unbeliever so that they will believe OR as edification for the church, thereby an interpretation must follow.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I know it may seem that I am 'nit-picking" in the above post- that certainly isn't my intention. However, the subject gets confusing when we use interchangable terms in referring to tongues. A careful study of Pauls writings shows a distinction between the different type of tongues. For the sake of clarity,I used the term "other tongues" in reference to what we call the "initial evidence" "Unknown tongues" was used to refer to "praying in tongues or the Spirit," and "prophetic Tongues" was used to refer to the "giving out of a prophetic message in tongues (to be interpreted).

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

When Paul says one should not speak in tongues in the public assembly unless it is followed by interpretation, does he really mean all tongues... or is there a caveat somewhere?

After Paul's' instruction, did they continue speaking in tongues publicly without interpretation?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

OA, I understand where you're coming from, and I was taught the same.

However, if you look more closely, there is no distinction.

On the day of Pentecost, when those in Jerusalem began to speak with "other" tongues, there were people there who understood them and received the message.

In Corinthians, Paul teaches that tongues are to be understood, either by interpretation, or by the fact that we are speaking in "other" languages, understood by those hearing us.

He says on more than one occasion, that if we speak with an "unknown" tongue, our spirit may be praying, but our understanding and the understanding of those around us is not fulfilled.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I have been in services where the minister said, "Everyone pray in tongues right now!"

And, pretty much everyone did for about 5 minutes.

No interpretation at all.

First off, I can't find any scripture where anyone was commanded to pray in tongues at will

Second, this directly violates Paul's teaching!

And, yet, this is commonplace in our ranks for many people to be praying in tongues at one time with no interpretation.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I agree.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Thanks, Bro. And it is because of your last sentence (I've bolded) why I believe Paul does, in fact, make distinction in tongues. We use the terms "unknown', "other" interchangably and that is okay. Paul did as well, but it all becomes confusing. For the sake of clarification, we should make the distinction between the different operations of tongues. A careful study of Pauls writing shows that, in reality, he did just that.

What we see on the Day of Pentecost is, in fact, just what Paul calls "divers kinds of tongues". Not only did those who recieve the Holy Ghost speak with "other tongues" (what we call the initial evidence)- but they also spoke in "unknown togues (i.e., "prayer language") and, "Prophetic tongues". Moreso than all, "prophetic tongues". Remember- Peter said the events of the Upper Room was a direct fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Joels said, specifically, And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Act 2:18 Note the word "prophesy". Speaking in "other togues" and in "unknown tongues" is not prophecy. The many different nationalities present said Act 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? What they were hearing was the gift of "divers kinds of tongues" in action. They were hearing, in their own language, prophetic utterances in tongues, which fulfilled Joel's prophecy.


Great discussion, BTW.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Yes, it is a great discussion - the type that I normally stay out of, but couldn't resist this time, lol!

However, I do have to ask this question - you imply that on the Day of Pentecost, all three types of tongues were in operation, did I understand correctly?

If so, I'd like to know your basis for this premise, since the Bible doesn't make the distinction.

THanks!

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Yeah, I try to avoid any thread that has the word "Pitfall" in the title! But this has been a good discussion. People have been marginally civil. And I appreciate that.

The premise is based on Joel's prophecy. Peter said the Day of Pentecost was a direct fulfillment of Joel 2:28.

He quotes Joel here: Act 2:18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: Note the word "prophesy" and, in Joels prophecy, the absence of any reference to "speaking in tongues". Joel said the outpouring of the Holy Ghost would be evidenced by 'prophecy" not "speaking in tongues". Yet, we know they "spoke with other tongues" when they recieved the Holy Ghost. What amazed these Arabians and Eygptians and all the rest was that they heard the people in the Upper Room speaking in "their own language". They understood Peter, James, John, Mary and the other 120 were saying, because they were speaking "prophetic utterances" in a languauge they (the speakers) did not know themselves. This was, in fact the "divers kinds of tongues" Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 12.

Paul, in explaining the usage of the spiritual gifts refers to prophetic utterances (or giving out a message in tongues to be interpreted) as "prophecy". The difference between "prophetic utterances" and "prophecy" is that one -"Prophetic Utterance' - is given in tongues to be interpreted, while "prophecy" needs no interpretation, it is spoken in the language of those that hear.

So... now... your turn, Brother. What did Paul mean when he said "divers kinds of tongues" rather than the more common, albeit, biblically incorrect term "Gift of tongues"?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

My thoughts, honestly? Well, to be frank, I'm a bit befuddled by some of these questions. If I didnt know better, I'd have to wonder if these questions really reflect your own thoughts/beliefs, or if you're just "throwing them out there" to see how I respond to them. But anyway...

In the interest of time, I'm going to take your post in 2 parts. I'll deal with the first part now, and try to come back later for the second part as time permits.

You say speaking in tongues refers to preaching the gospel (?). Frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that. So I'll start with a question: what scriptures do you see that indicates that "speaking in tongues" referred to preaching the gospel? Frankly, I dont believe there are any such scriputures, but I'd be interested in seeing what you provide us with on that.

But to answer your question...
Lets just go back to Jesus words in that passage in question. He said:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

The key word there is sign. Obviously, the word "sign" is a referring to miracle, something supernatural. The other things listed there are clearly beyond human capability (driving out demons, healing the sick, being unharmed by poison or serpents, etc). So clearly he is referring to things that are specifically enabled by the miraculous power of God.

Now for example if I were to learn Spanish or French, and go to Mexico or France to preach the gospel, I'd be spreading the gospel in a language that I've learned, but that would not be a miraculous sign...because I'd be speaking based on an ability I already have. If a person goes and preaches the gospel in a foreign language they know, there is NOTHING supernatural about that. That wouldnt even make sense in the context of Jesus's words in Mark 16. Clearly, speaking in tongues, as Jesus referred to in those verses, would only be a sign or miracle if it were unknown to the person speaking it.

Secondly, speaking in tongues was never for preaching the gospel. There's just no scripture anywhere for that. In Acts 2:11 it says "they were speaking the wonderful words of God" (that is, praise) but the gospel was not preached to them in tongues. After they asked "what meaneth this" that Paul preached the gospel of Christ to them. There were 15 nations/languages spoken of there (v 9-11) but paul spoke to them in a common language they all understood -- probably Greek, or maybe aramaic. Thus we see clearly that tongues served as a sign, but it was not used for preaching.

Looking further in scripture, where speaking in tongues is mentioned, it is never for preaching the gospel. (In the book of Acts, for example, we see incidents of people speaking in tongues when they recieved the Holy Ghost, but the idea of people speaking in tongues as a method of sharing the gospel is just not there. )

Acts 10, Cornelius's house spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost, after the gospel was preached to them in their own language by Peter.

Acts 19, The former disciples spoke in tongues after the word was preached/taught to them by Paul.
1 Cor. 14... Paul speaks of tongues as being something used by a believer in private prayer (14:2,4, 14-16), or in conjunction with the gift of interpretation (14:5-6, 26-28) to edify the church body. 1 Cor 12 and 14 are the 2 chapters that give us the NT's most detailed explanation of the use and purpose of spiritual gifts, but Paul says nothing there about tongues being for preaching the gospel.


So this whole idea of tongues being for the preaching of the gospel is just not supported by scripture at all.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Good stuff.

Ok, my answers:

First, I totally agree with you on the prophecy at the day of Pentecost - I've said all along that those who were infilled spoke in other languages, BUT languages that were understood, hence the prophecy, the glorifying God, and obviously speaking the gospel, because the crowd immediately asked "What shall we do?"

However, I see no evidence of an "unknown" tongue at Pentecost, i.e., a language that was understood by no one. That's the one I was asking about.

Second, Paul definitely mentioned unknown tongues as being a gift, but he IMEDIATELY said that another was given the gift to INTERPRET those same divers tongues.

I see no reference to "unknown" tongues as a gift without the interpretation of those SAME tongues.

Hence, my question about the prayer language, or unknown or uninterpreted tongues.

Back to you, my friend!:santathumb

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I understand what you are saying BUT if the gifts are solely to edify the church then the gift of healing cannot be used upon an unbeliever in a setting apart from other members (at least one ) of the body of Christ being present.

Also the context of 1 Cor 12-14 is about the gifts of the Spirit...gifts given to those believers who have been baptized in the Spirit. You will have to go through chap 12 and 14 and clearly show how Paul differentiates tongues in prayer (tongues that edify the individual believer) and tongues in the assembly (the gift of tongues that edifies the church) as being a different. One a gift and the other a prayer language. I believe the gift of tongues comprises both.

I don't see a distinction in the tongues (that is the tongues uttered in prayer and the tongues uttered in the assembly) Paul is speaking about in Chap 14 except that if you speak in tongues in the church assembly in which the tongues are not quietly to yourself but loud enough to command everyone's attention THEN there needs to be an interpreter and if there is not an interpreter, then speak quietly in tongues to yourself and God. Where is the distinction here? It's only due to the lack of a member of the body who has the gift of interpretation of tongues.

Are you saying that person who spoke to the church in tongues without an interpreter present didn't know that it was really the prayer tongue that the Spirit was uttering and not the gift of tongues which would have been a message to the church and would have been given only if an interpreter were present? Did Paul make that distinction?

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

I appreciate your insight, TR, and I thank you for taking the time to reply.

The original translation of Mark 16 says "In my name they will speak in new languages".........it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".

Now, as to whether God miraculously endowed those that "went into ALL the world" with the ability to speak in the native tongue of the land into which they were sent, I don't know, but it would certainly make sense to me.

However, that's just speculation on my part.

I do know one thing - the entire continent of Asia was evangelized with the gospel within the space of 2 and 1/2 years without the aid of television, internet, tapes, or vehicles for these folks to drive across an entire continent.

So, it would certainly not be beyond our God to enable believers to "speak with a new language that they had not learned" in order to accomplish this task.


Now, the points I've been trying to make all along are that there is little or no Biblical backing to distinguish between the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, which was every man speaking in a language he didn't understand, and the gift of tongues - which was either speaking in a known language but one the speaker didn't understand, or an unknown tongue that was followed by an interpretation.

(And, as a side bar, I'm just curious as to why many Apostolics will take the sign of tongues in Mark 16, but leave the snakes and poison alone, lol.)

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Note to file:

AFF can have a thread where people discuss issues intelligently without fussing and fighting.

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

There is no contradiction or inconsistency at all, brother.

If you look carefully at what Paul says in that chapter, (I've quoted the relevant verses multiple times already on this thread, so I'll just speak generally here:)
1/ Paul makes it quite clear that he is discussing spiritual gifts (1 cor 12:1, 14:1). And he speaks of private prayer in tongues("prayer language") in that very context/setting, right alongside his explanation of the other spiritual gifts (why? clearly because private prayer in tongues is itself a manifestation of a spiritual gift), but also
2/ He specifically says that the gift tongues edify only the individual, and only edify the rest of the body if it is manifested in conjunction with the gift of interpretation.

Yes, all sipritual gifts, including the gift of tongues (whether in private prayer, or with interpretation ) are for the edifying of the body of Christ. Just because the other hearers in the church gathering are not edified, doesn't mean the body of Christ is not being edified. It is, in the sense that the individuals within the body are benefitting because their spirits are being edified; But Paul is saying that others around them are not getting the benefit of what they're hearing unless there is an interpretation, and that's why he discouraged speaking in tongues in the congregation without the speaker or someone else in the congregation having the gift of interpretation in order to give word that would bless the other hearers.

( But just because it primarily benefits the speaker instead of the hearer doesnt make praying in tongues NOT a manifestation of the spritual gift of tongues. )

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

Brother Phelps and company: This is one of the best convos in AFF history! By best, I mean, civil, considerate and enlightening. And some people say a Biblical conversation without fussin can't be done. However, gonna have to bow out.... got company then gotta run to Tennessee. I'll try to get back to it later- maybe tomorrow. God bless!

Re: Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrin
 

There's definitlely a lots of speculation there, Mike. Lots of it, especially in that bolded parts.
I cant base my theology on speculation though. I try to stick to what's in the text. There's enough there for me to work with, rather than gettiing into a lot of extra-biblical speculation.

Besides, tongues and languages mean the exact same thing... so I'm not sure what your point is when you choose to use the words separately and disctinctly, as if theres some distinction in meaning. New tongues/new languages/unknown tongues/unknown languages... I think we're talking about the same thing.

Also, you keep referring to "unknown tongues" (you say: "it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".") Ok. I dont see why that is an issue. Its unknown to the speaker; I think that's the whole point. And to use Jesus's words "they shall speak with new tongues"... they're "new" to the speaker -- that's what makes it a supernatural sign. I'm really not seeing why you seem to place such significance on the whole "unknown tongues" part of it.