Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

How do you know if there is no interpreter present without going ahead and giving the message? After the utterance is given, let there be a pause and see what happens. If there is no interpretation, let the service go on, but don't give out with another message.

We need to be careful we don't impose restrictions that are overly tight on people. That could quench the Spirit or put people in fear.

The way I understand the order of speaking with tongues in 1 Corinthians is that it is speaking of the gifts of the Spirit, as operated in a public service, not what happens when people are baptized in the Spirit. It does not apply to what happens when hands are laid upon a person to impart the Spirit baptism or to what happens when people at the altar, where many are praying together aloud, may speak out in tongues as the Spirit blesses them. In my opinion, no interpretation is required here although I've heard of it being done.

If we get too dogmatic, legalistic, or too concerned with "order" people will be afraid to speak out if they feel like they are being used to give a message in tongues.

If everyone is praying aloud at the same time, in my opinion, those prayers could be in one's known language or in one's prayer language. If one person is leading in prayer from the congregation or from the platform, those prayers should be in the common known language. If you are asked to bless the food, or bless the offering, or to dismiss the service, it should be in the commonly known language unless you (or someone else) interpret.

But to silence or muzzle someone who might get a little happy and say a few words in tongues when someone else can hear them, would, in my opinion, be following the letter of the law and not the spirit.

Hey, we're Pentecostal. Tongues happens in our churches. If people don't know that coming in, they find out sooner or later. Too much "decently and in order" can dry things up.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Sam

We need to be careful we don't impose restrictions that are overly tight on people. That could quench the Spirit or put people in fear.

If we get too dogmatic, legalistic, or too concerned with "order" people will be afraid to speak out if they feel like they are being used to give a message in tongues.

But to silence or muzzle someone who might get a little happy and say a few words in tongues when someone else can hear them, would, in my opinion, be following the letter of the law and not the spirit.

Hey, we're Pentecostal. Tongues happens in our churches. If people don't know that coming in, they find out sooner or later. Too much "decently and in order" can dry things up.

I agree!!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Here is the bottom line

27If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

28But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

I would concede Verse 28 may indicate "speaking in tongues" silently or softly (inaudible), but not that others can hear.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

I may have missed it but do you think it is okay to speak quietly in tongues in church if you are not disrupting the entire congregation?

I did mention that above, but the "if you are not disrupting" part is subjective - especially to Pentecostals who may argue backflips and other spastic eruptions are "in order".

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I did mention that above, but the "if you are not disrupting" part is subjective - especially to Pentecostals who may argue backflips and other spastic eruptions are "in order".

Now you are deviating a bit. LOL!

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Now you are deviating a bit. LOL!

Oh but seriously, don't you think a group from a Rodney Howard Brown meeting or a group from a 150 decibel head-bangin Youth Convention is going to have a different view than someone off the streets of Corinth?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

Oh but seriously, don't you think a group from a Rodney Howard Brown meeting or a group from a 150 decibel head-bangin Youth Convention is going to have a different view than someone off the streets of Corinth?

LOL! I don't even know who Rodney Howard Brown is.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

LOL! I don't even know who Rodney Howard Brown is.

And now you know...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?q=&rls=...ox-a&channel=s

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Sam

We need to be careful we don't impose restrictions that are overly tight on people. That could quench the Spirit or put people in fear.

The way I understand the order of speaking with tongues in 1 Corinthians is that it is speaking of the gifts of the Spirit, as operated in a public service, not what happens when people are baptized in the Spirit. It does not apply to what happens when hands are laid upon a person to impart the Spirit baptism or to what happens when people at the altar, where many are praying together aloud, may speak out in tongues as the Spirit blesses them. In my opinion, no interpretation is required here although I've heard of it being done.

If we get too dogmatic, legalistic, or too concerned with "order" people will be afraid to speak out if they feel like they are being used to give a message in tongues.

If everyone is praying aloud at the same time, in my opinion, those prayers could be in one's known language or in one's prayer language. If one person is leading in prayer from the congregation or from the platform, those prayers should be in the common known language. If you are asked to bless the food, or bless the offering, or to dismiss the service, it should be in the commonly known language unless you (or someone else) interpret.

But to silence or muzzle someone who might get a little happy and say a few words in tongues when someone else can hear them, would, in my opinion, be following the letter of the law and not the spirit.

Hey, we're Pentecostal. Tongues happens in our churches. If people don't know that coming in, they find out sooner or later. Too much "decently and in order" can dry things up.

As a Pentecostal we may (or not) agree, but what about Paul's instruction concerning the unlearned then? Is it applied as an option only?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

As a Pentecostal we may (or not) agree, but what about Paul's instruction concerning the unlearned then? Is it applied as an option only?

If everyone is babbling away with no order the "unlearned" in the operation of the Spirit would feel confused. It would only stand to reason, IMO.

It seems the Church of Corinth was focusing more on the gifts than the Giver. Also in Chapter 13 Paul is turning their attention to the "heart" and how important that it is to "love" as the gift is nothing without it.

Lots going on in Corinth.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If everyone is babbling away with no order the "unlearned" in the operation of the Spirit would feel confused. It would only stand to reason, IMO.

It seems the Church of Corinth was focusing more on the gifts than the Giver. Also in Chapter 13 Paul is turning their attention to the "heart" and how important that is to "love" as the gift is nothing without it.

Lots going on in Corinth.

I keep reading posts like this one and think I agree... unless you are then implying that we are somehow exempt of the instruction Paul gave to the Corinthians on tongues because they also had other issues...