Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

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).

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.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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.

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.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

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.

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!

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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!

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"?

[Hoovie]

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?

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

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?

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.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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.

I agree.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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.

But when many pray in tongues at the same time, the prayer is between each individual and God. The prayer is not for some other person in the congregation and therefore does not need to be interpreted. If a person addresses the congregation, either from the pulpit or from the pew, that needs to be interpreted. Private prayers in tongues (or in a person's prayer language) do not need to be interpreted (but might be at times).

A prayer in tongues in private edifies the one praying. A message in tongues to a congregation edifies the congregation if it is interpreted.

Praying in tongues privately edifies the church in that it edifies the individuals doing the praying.

[Encryptus]

Originally Posted by Sam

But when many pray in tongues at the same time, the prayer is between each individual and God. The prayer is not for some other person in the congregation and therefore does not need to be interpreted. If a person addresses the congregation, either from the pulpit or from the pew, that needs to be interpreted. Private prayers in tongues (or in a person's prayer language) do not need to be interpreted (but might be at times).

A prayer in tongues in private edifies the one praying. A message in tongues to a congregation edifies the congregation if it is interpreted.

Praying in tongues privately edifies the church in that it edifies the individuals doing the praying.

True, just remember to keep someone by the back door to explain to the visitors/unbelievers what is going on.

LOL

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by Sam

But when many pray in tongues at the same time, the prayer is between each individual and God. The prayer is not for some other person in the congregation and therefore does not need to be interpreted. If a person addresses the congregation, either from the pulpit or from the pew, that needs to be interpreted. Private prayers in tongues (or in a person's prayer language) do not need to be interpreted (but might be at times).

A prayer in tongues in private edifies the one praying. A message in tongues to a congregation edifies the congregation if it is interpreted.

Praying in tongues privately edifies the church in that it edifies the individuals doing the praying.

Well, I can see your point, Sam, but don't forget - Paul said that if we all cae together at the same place and spoke in tongues, the unbeliever might think we were mad!