Tongue & Interpretation Yesterday

[Dark Energy]

Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder

God states, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent."

I believe God would rather prove me wrong than to send me packing and deliver a message behind my back. I'm always willing to admit my wrong, and also willing to repent. I believe the Lord would rather show me my error.

I don't believe I was being a hindrance as I was worshiping God. I've been in services where the Lord spoke and sinners were in the congregation. If those sinners they weren't a hindrance for God then, I doubt I was a hindrance while belonging to Him.

Just a thought here but, maybe God sending you out the door or waiting for you to leave before speaking was Him proving you wrong?

I don't know about hindrances however as far as sinners go, often a sinner comes to church because he has humbled himself and wants to receive salvation and or see what God has. They aren't usually praying against the ministry or praying God would shut someone up.

[Praxeas]

One thing I thought of too. The interpreter might get something off a little bit but we too might mis-hear things. Prepare your Harvest might have been Prepare for harvest...sounds the same

[freeatlast]

It's Interpretation, NOT translations of tongues.

Translation would indicate a word for word translation of the message in tongues.

Interpretaion would be the general feeling of what the interpreter sences the Spirit is saying to the church.

Just my thoughts......

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Jacob's Ladder

A poster named Praxeas created a tongue and interpretation thread a few days ago. Within that thread I mentioned of having a confirmation in my spirit when a genuine T&I message of God proceeded.

In the last tongue & interpretation (T&I) I questioned if the wording was from God. Two reasons:

1) I didn't feel the confirmation in my spirit
2) God would not tell the church to prepare their harvest. The harvest belongs to God (Matt 9:38). The harvest isn't ours personally as the interpretor inferred.

From my experience, there's usually a "hush" and then there's a single person who begins to speak in tongues. I've also encountered where congregants are speaking in tongues, and then there's a person whom dominates all tongues as he/she begins to speak in a loud authoritative tongue and everyone becomes quiet.


Well yesterday everyone was speaking in tongues during worship. The music stopped and all were still speaking in tongues. There was no "hush", just people praying in the spirit. The person at the pulpit said God wants to speak, but people were just praying.

I then told God, if this isn't a genuine message from you, keep the person's mouth at the pulpit shut.

So the person at the pulpit said, let God use you, let God use you. So we all kept praying and calling on God. There was no "hush" nor a dominate tongue speaker, we were all just worshiping God.

I then felt to walk out of the sanctuary and began praying as I began walking down the hallway.

Right as I walked out of the sanctuary, the person at the pulpit began delivering a tongues & interpretation message. Where was the "tongue" message to interpret? There was none.

Then a thought came to my mind as I was walking the hallway praying, that this person's mind was made up that God was going to speak.

God answered my petition while I remained in the sanctuary, and he had to remove me from the sanctuary because this person's mind was made up that God was going to speak-

Your post is conflicting I think. How and where is this "dominance" doctrine in scripture? Do you believe tongues must have a certain decibel level to qualify as a gift?

[deltaguitar]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

does anyone in your new church speak in tongues?

I am sure there are thousands who do. I have seen people that looked like they were speaking in tongues during worship. The gifts are encouraged but with so many calvinist/baptist it is not something that people do out loud. I know that in our membership class there were a lot of questions about it. I haven't been to the prayer meetings because I am not ready to be around any of that stuff again. Just makes me to nervous.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Well first of all Pel, I never offered that it has to be a hush or whatever. In fact I argued against it having to be that way.

Second there is NO biblical model or command for the following regarding interpretation

At our church if a person has a message they are to submit it to the board of elders and only after 1) they agree to be held accountable by the elders, 2) the elders confirm that there is no departure from scripture in the message and 3) the elders feel that it is helpful to the body will they agree to release the message.

If you think there is I would be glad to check it out. But I stand by my first post regarding this

Originally Posted by Praxeas

BTW here is the biblical model

1Co 14:27 If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn, and let someone interpret.
1Co 14:28 But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God.
1Co 14:29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.
1Co 14:30 If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent.
1Co 14:31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged,
1Co 14:32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.

You yourself provided the Scriptural passage substantiating just what I said about DG's church's practice being "Biblical." Though, as I mentioned as well, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of a board of elders is a bit too "authoritarian" for me... but then again, maybe there's more to their practice and maybe they've been burned in the past by wanna-be-prophets.

Our usual method of doing this particular thing is rife with opportunities for abuse and manipulation. What's wrong with giving it a day or two - or even a week for "and let the others weigh what is said"? If it's God, it's an eternal message. Personally though, I would prefer good instruction on this matter so that a measure of spontaneity would still be present, without the abuse and embarrassing moments.

I especially like the way DG's elders ask if the "prophet" or "interpreter" is willing to be held accountable for what they say. Just try and do that during one of our typical jam sessions. Can you imagine?

Instead of a "hush" or something, we'd have someone ask through the microphone: "Before you give this message... are you willing to be held accountable for what you are about to say?"

Most of the stuff that is said is so ambiguous and almost always geared toward an encouraging word that it's not really a problem. It's just those times when manipulative people have tried to game the system that I have a problem with...

... or the times when some sister, stoned out of her gourd on her prescription meds, shrilly gives a "message" in "tongues" that sounds more garbled and indistinct than the Pythia Priestess at Delphi and the "pastor" or worship leader just lets the whole thing run on.

How about this: Have you ever been in an Apostolic Pentecostal service where the "tongues and interpretations" (and the "prophecies") seemed to be more attributable to drug use, poor Bible instruction or a lack of real leadership than having anything to do with the Holy Ghost?

I have been in hundreds of churches across North America and Latin America and I can say "yes" to scores if not hundreds of such incidents. It's prevalent and widespread. DG's people are at least addressing this problem. We have yet to acknowledge that there is even a problem at all - and as a result, we have turned literally MILLIONS of souls out of our churches.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

It's Interpretation, NOT translations of tongues.

Translation would indicate a word for word translation of the message in tongues.

Interpretaion would be the general feeling of what the interpreter sences the Spirit is saying to the church.

Just my thoughts......

And some mighty fine thoughts they were indeed.

[PastorTLArt]

Originally Posted by pelathais

And some mighty fine thoughts they were indeed.

I hadn't thought of that, but it is a very good point!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You yourself provided the Scriptural passage substantiating just what I said about DG's church's practice being "Biblical." Though, as I mentioned as well, leaving the matter entirely in the hands of a board of elders is a bit too "authoritarian" for me... but then again, maybe there's more to their practice and maybe they've been burned in the past by wanna-be-prophets.

Our usual method of doing this particular thing is rife with opportunities for abuse and manipulation. What's wrong with giving it a day or two - or even a week for "and let the others weigh what is said"? If it's God, it's an eternal message. Personally though, I would prefer good instruction on this matter so that a measure of spontaneity would still be present, without the abuse and embarrassing moments.

I especially like the way DG's elders ask if the "prophet" or "interpreter" is willing to be held accountable for what they say. Just try and do that during one of our typical jam sessions. Can you imagine?

Instead of a "hush" or something, we'd have someone ask through the microphone: "Before you give this message... are you willing to be held accountable for what you are about to say?"

Most of the stuff that is said is so ambiguous and almost always geared toward an encouraging word that it's not really a problem. It's just those times when manipulative people have tried to game the system that I have a problem with...

... or the times when some sister, stoned out of her gourd on her prescription meds, shrilly gives a "message" in "tongues" that sounds more garbled and indistinct than the Pythia Priestess at Delphi and the "pastor" or worship leader just lets the whole thing run on.

How about this: Have you ever been in an Apostolic Pentecostal service where the "tongues and interpretations" (and the "prophecies") seemed to be more attributable to drug use, poor Bible instruction or a lack of real leadership than having anything to do with the Holy Ghost?

I have been in hundreds of churches across North America and Latin America and I can say "yes" to scores if not hundreds of such incidents. It's prevalent and widespread. DG's people are at least addressing this problem. We have yet to acknowledge that there is even a problem at all - and as a result, we have turned literally MILLIONS of souls out of our churches.

He is talking about PRIOR approval, something entirely different from what Paul was talking about.

Paul told them to judge AFTER the fact and Im fine with that

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He is talking about PRIOR approval, something entirely different from what Paul was talking about.

Paul told them to judge AFTER the fact and Im fine with that

That "prior approval" would obviously have to FOLLOW the prophet or other speaker's act of speaking his or her message - speaking to the elders at least. Otherwise, just what are the elders to judge?

Like I said, for me, I would prefer a more open system. But, I have to also add that there are certainly going to be others who prefer to throttle this whole thing back and most likely, they will do so because of bad experiences in the past. I admit that I have a hard time arguing against people who recount those kinds of experiences.

The elders in DG's scenario are judging "after the fact," however.