Only 2 types of tongues not 3

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think this corresponds with the same principle mentioned in Romans 8. We sometimes do not even know how to pray or what to pray for in some situations. Since tongues are unknown to us (Paul said his understanding is unfruitful if he prays in tongues), this gives even more credence to the association with Romans 8's note. When we do not know what to pray for, the Spirit makes intercession for us. How? Tongues and perhaps other ways as well.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Anything spoken is uttered. Romans 8:26 is not an example of why praying privately in tongues is useful. Tongues can and always are uttered. The act of speaking is an utterance. When they spoke with tongues in acts 2:4, it even says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. Romans 8:26 must be about something other than tongues.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Like I said, there is a need, for everyone at be point or another will not really know even how to pray in certain situations. Perhaps we cannot see a person healed, and do not know the reason, and prayer in tongues is the Spirit ministering through us and He knows what the answer is! Who knows the possible solutions as to why we need the Spirit to pray through us in tongues since we do not know how to pray?

Using the point I just made about Romans 8:26, it seems we can have help with not knowing how we should pray with something other than tongues(groaning that cannot be uttered). So why would privately praying in tongues be something God would need to give everyone? Why couldn't he give it to some and not to others?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Gift or not, I did not have to say gift. Speaking in tongues is supernatural, and anything we do in the Spirit edifies us while we do it. It's just awesome!

True, anything supernatural seems as if it would bring edification to us.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Maybe, but I am not convinced. Perhaps he just threw in both forms of tongues since the topic arose.

Maybe, but I think context seems to point to it all being the gift of tongues he is speaking of. I think you have agreed with me that 14:1-13 seems to be about the gift of tongues.

Verse 14:14 mentions praying in tongues. Though it is immediately following a verse about speaking in tongues. Also verse 17 (just 3 verses later) is about lack of edification in the hearers. This lack of edification is clearly tied to the tongues not being interpreted. If you are right, it seems odd Paul would mention praying in tongues privately right in the middle of all this talk about speaking in tongues (what I would interpret as the gift of tongues).

In fact unless your just picking a few verses out of the chapter, almost every time he mentions tongues he also mentions them being interpreted. Because of his countless mentions of interpreting the tongues I think it's very safe to conclude that this whole chapter seems to be about the gift of tongues.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Speaking to himself is not intended to be woodenly interpreted as self is the audience. I think it is keeping it to yourself, in our terms.

That is one possible resolution for the apparent contradiction. Another is that in verse 2, Paul was meaning that he did not speak to any other men. That he wasn't saying anything about whether the speaker understood his own words or not, but just that others did not.

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think the solution is simple. Paul knew his dedication, and knew the hearts of the Corinthians. They were simply carnal. Their bickering and feuding proved that. I think it stands to reason that such people FLAUNT their "spirituality" alone in the open when in that sort of state.

I think there is a better solution. I think the solution is that Paul was not meaning a private prayer language at all when he said he spoke with tongues more than them all. I think he was meaning that he used the gift of tongues more than them all. It makes sense to since he was going around the world spreading the gospel he would need to speak in other languages much more than the corinthians would.


Now with all that said I would like to say a little about what all this means. There seems to be a few different options we can use to understand this passage.

1) If I am right then, that every mention of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is referring to the gift of tongues (and not a private prayer langauge), then the bible doesn't once give reference to a private prayer language in tongues. This would not mean it wasn't of God but only that no biblical support of it would exist.

2) 1 Corinthians 14 could be written in such a way that the gift of tongues and the private prayer language are written of in no apparent order. That is, that Paul goes in and out of mentioning one then the other and so on. (I think this seems very unlikely but I list it for thoroughness) This would mean the private prayer language of tongues was in the bible. Though, without some predetermined logical way of making sense of which verse referred to the private prayer language and which referred to the gift of tongues you would soon face accusations of just picking and choosing which verses referred to which type of tongues. So unless a clear logical method can be given for determining the type of tongues Paul is meaning in a particular verse this position is not very appealing.

3) Maybe the gift of tongues is the source of the private prayer language and as such every reference to tongues in 1 Corinthians also references this, and it is the interpreting of this prayer language that gives messages to the church and edifies them. This method implies that not everyone would have the private prayer language because not everyone would have the private prayer language.

Pentecostals cannot choose option 3 because every Pentecostal has a private prayer language. So this leaves options 1 and 2. Option 1 leaves no biblical mention of a prayer language but still allows it's existence. Option 2 allows for it's existence and some biblical support, but option 2 also runs into the problem of trying to explain why some verses refer to the prayer language and others refer to the gift. If an adequate explanation of this cannot be given then option 1 is the only valid option for a pentecostal. Though this means privately praying in tongues cannot be defended by the bible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

That is why I said the same principle is found in Romans 8.

Anything spoken is uttered. Romans 8:26 is not an example of why praying privately in tongues is useful.

No, but the principle of the Spirit interceding when we do not know how to pray is the point. And I also said other ways.

Tongues can and always are uttered. The act of speaking is an utterance. When they spoke with tongues in acts 2:4, it even says they spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. Romans 8:26 must be about something other than tongues.

Agreed. But again I am saying the principle of not knowing what to pray for and seeing the Spirit intervene is the point. The Spirit does that. Why would not tongues be one of those means, too?

Using the point I just made about Romans 8:26, it seems we can have help with not knowing how we should pray with something other than tongues(groaning that cannot be uttered). So why would privately praying in tongues be something God would need to give everyone? Why couldn't he give it to some and not to others?

I see your point. It's just not totally concrete. But you may be right. The point is, Paul could mention the tongues all can receive in the fray of dealing with tongues overall in 1 Cor 14.

Maybe, but I think context seems to point to it all being the gift of tongues he is speaking of. I think you have agreed with me that 14:1-13 seems to be about the gift of tongues.

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Especially after you mentioned there are indeed other ways for the Spirit to intercede for us, leaving prayer in tongues not essential for everyone.

Verse 14:14 mentions praying in tongues. Though it is immediately following a verse about speaking in tongues. Also verse 17 (just 3 verses later) is about lack of edification in the hearers. This lack of edification is clearly tied to the tongues not being interpreted. If you are right, it seems odd Paul would mention praying in tongues privately right in the middle of all this talk about speaking in tongues (what I would interpret as the gift of tongues).

I think he did it in order to explain how tongues simply should not be done in public without interpretation, and granted them the fact that prayer in tongues with no interpretation does indeed edify the talker. He simply put it in its rightful place.

In fact unless your just picking a few verses out of the chapter, almost every time he mentions tongues he also mentions them being interpreted. Because of his countless mentions of interpreting the tongues I think it's very safe to conclude that this whole chapter seems to be about the gift of tongues.

It mostly is if not all of it is.

That is one possible resolution for the apparent contradiction. Another is that in verse 2, Paul was meaning that he did not speak to any other men. That he wasn't saying anything about whether the speaker understood his own words or not, but just that others did not.

I think there is a better solution. I think the solution is that Paul was not meaning a private prayer language at all when he said he spoke with tongues more than them all. I think he was meaning that he used the gift of tongues more than them all. It makes sense to since he was going around the world spreading the gospel he would need to speak in other languages much more than the corinthians would.

But he said, "yet in the church." The church is the corporate body where more than one person is present. So I still think he meant private prayer. If he was walking with a couple other folks in the church, he still would be "in the church" at that moment.

But Paul did mention praying in the Spirit when his understanding is unfruitful.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is why I said the same principle is found in Romans 8.


No, but the principle of the Spirit interceding when we do not know how to pray is the point. And I also said other ways.


Agreed. But again I am saying the principle of not knowing what to pray for and seeing the Spirit intervene is the point. The Spirit does that. Why would not tongues be one of those means, too?


I see your point. It's just not totally concrete. But you may be right. The point is, Paul could mention the tongues all can receive in the fray of dealing with tongues overall in 1 Cor 14.


Yes, that does seem to be the case. Especially after you mentioned there are indeed other ways for the Spirit to intercede for us, leaving prayer in tongues not essential for everyone.

Agreed, though you are right that a private prayer language in tongues would indeed be a possible way the Spirit could intercede. I really want to make it clear that I am not ruling that out. Whether there is biblical evidence of the practice or not, I don't think the people doing it today are doing it because of Satan or anything like that. Just wanted to make that perfectly clear

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think he did it in order to explain how tongues simply should not be done in public without interpretation, and granted them the fact that prayer in tongues with no interpretation does indeed edify the talker. He simply put it in its rightful place.


It mostly is if not all of it is.

I agree that he was doing it to show how tongues should not be used in public. Are you for option 1 or 2 or 3 that I just mentioned in my last post. It'll be hard to respond till I know where you are coming from.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But he said, "yet in the church." The church is the corporate body where more than one person is present. So I still think he meant private prayer. If he was walking with a couple other folks in the church, he still would be "in the church" at that moment.

Church is the coming together of christians. This is true. Though I'm not sure if "the church" would qualify as such a coming together if only 2-3 were present. Not saying God wouldn't be with them, just that I'm not sure 2-3 is what he had in mind when he was referring to the church. Though even if he did mean it that way, I'm sure he could have had enough private moments alone with sinners he was talking in tongues to, to make the claim. I mean if it's the way you are saying then he surely had enough private moments to pray alone in them alot. So it seems he must have had plenty of alone time away from other christians either way. Either that or he didn't mean 2-3 when he was referring to the church in this passage.

Originally Posted by mfblume

But Paul did mention praying in the Spirit when his understanding is unfruitful.

This is something I have been meaning to bring up and keep forgetting about.

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

Must that phrase mean he didn't understand? I'm not sure which way it means for sure but I have an alternative for you to think about. Maybe he was saying "The understanding I possess (my understanding) doesn't bring understanding in others (is unfruitful).