Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

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?

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?