Only 2 types of tongues not 3

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

What about the words of Paul saying that prayer in tongues edifies oneself but PROPHESYING edifies others? He did not say prayer in tongues that is interpreted edifies others. And prophesying is not the same thing as interpretation of tongues.

I think that since Paul said prayer in tongues edifies oneself, and since he said he spoke in tongues more than them all but yet in the CHURCH he rather spoke in the native language, he meant that prayer in tongues is done in private. Why else would he say he spoke in tongues more than anyone, but YET IN THE CHURCH not do so?

Those ideas about edifying yourself come from 1 Corinthians 14:2,4. From conext, those verses are obviously about the gift of tongues. Verse 1 even says he is talking about spiritual gifts and they are compared with prophecy. So they cannot be used to support the pentecostal practice that everyone seems to pray in tongues because everyone in the pentecostal movement prays in tongues and those verses are in reference to the gift of tongues which not everyone has.

Another, thought is... what reason does Paul give for the church not being edified for your speaking in tongues? Because they don't understand it. If they are not edified because they don't understand what is being said, how can you be edified when you don't understand what is being said?

One explanation Paul could be thanking God he spoke in tongues was because his speaking in tongues were edifying those around him.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Those ideas about edifying yourself come from 1 Corinthians 14:2,4. From conext, those verses are obviously about the gift of tongues. Verse 1 even says he is talking about spiritual gifts and they are compared with prophecy. So they cannot be used to support the pentecostal practice that everyone seems to pray in tongues because everyone in the pentecostal movement prays in tongues and those verses are in reference to the gift of tongues which not everyone has.

Another, thought is... what reason does Paul give for the church not being edified for your speaking in tongues? Because they don't understand it. If they are not edified because they don't understand what is being said, how can you be edified when you don't understand what is being said?

One explanation Paul could be thanking God he spoke in tongues was because his speaking in tongues were edifying those around him.

I wanted to add that if there was interpretation with the tongues that he spoke in (like he has been emphasizing for them to do) then it would make perfect sense how he could thank God for it and still talk about understanding in the church. He could even be meaning that he speaks in tongues in the church also (but only with interpretation)

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Those ideas about edifying yourself come from 1 Corinthians 14:2,4. From conext, those verses are obviously about the gift of tongues. Verse 1 even says he is talking about spiritual gifts and they are compared with prophecy. So they cannot be used to support the pentecostal practice that everyone seems to pray in tongues because everyone in the pentecostal movement prays in tongues and those verses are in reference to the gift of tongues which not everyone has.

You have a strong point about the tongues being the gift, since the context from chs. 12 and 13 are gifts. But why would some be able to PRAY in tongues and some not, since it is prayer?

Another, thought is... what reason does Paul give for the church not being edified for your speaking in tongues? Because they don't understand it. If they are not edified because they don't understand what is being said, how can you be edified when you don't understand what is being said?

You are edified when YOU speak in tongues because you are praying to God and God is answering your prayers, obviously. You do not have to understand the tongues in order for God to answer those prayers in tongues and edify you. Also, one who prays in tongues is operating a gift and that operation in itself edifies the person operating it.

One explanation Paul could be thanking God he spoke in tongues was because his speaking in tongues were edifying those around him.

This last point here cannot fit at all, I think. Paul said the person speaking in tongues is edified but no one else is. And then he said if he prays in tongues his understanding is unfruitful. Putting that altogether means that we pray in tongues, without understanding what we are praying, and we are edified since God obviously answers those prayers, but no one else is edified since they cannot understand the tongues. In every case in 1 Cor 14, tongues are not known by the hearers or speakers. Tongues is also called speaking "in the Spirit" as opposed to speaking in native languages with the understanding..

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

I wanted to add that if there was interpretation with the tongues that he spoke in (like he has been emphasizing for them to do) then it would make perfect sense how he could thank God for it and still talk about understanding in the church. He could even be meaning that he speaks in tongues in the church also (but only with interpretation)

That is exactly what he is saying, I think. Paul was saying that he would not speak in tongues in a church gathering unless it would be interpreted. He spoke in tongues more than any of them. And they did it a lot in church. But the difference is that Paul would not do it in church. This can only refer to prayer in tongues. Everything said about tongues and how it edifies oneself and how it ought not be done in gathers without interpretations all fits when one realizes that one is intended to do THAT alone.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You have a strong point about the tongues being the gift, since the context from chs. 12 and 13 are gifts. But why would some be able to PRAY in tongues and some not, since it is prayer?

So with my position that 14:4 must be about the gift of tongues. So it seems that the gift of tongues can be self edifying. I won't elaborate anymore on the implications of this at the moment, but maybe in a future post.

As for the prayer question, I would ask why does anyone actually need to pray in anything other than their natural language? Just because one can't pray in tongues wouldn't mean that they couldn't pray, and the ability to pray is what is important in this scenario. So since there is no absolute need to be able to pray in tongues I would think God could possibly give that ability to some and not to others.

Originally Posted by mfblume

You are edified when YOU speak in tongues because you are praying to God and God is answering your prayers, obviously. You do not have to understand the tongues in order for God to answer those prayers in tongues and edify you. Also, one who prays in tongues is operating a gift and that operation in itself edifies the person operating it.

I'm assuming you are meaning praying privately in tongues in the first bolded case. In the other bolded case, terminology is very important. I'm assuming by "operating a gift" you are not meaning that those who pray privately in tongues are actually using the gift of tongues. I'm assuming you meant they are edified when they do this privately because it is a supernatural experience from God. This idea has some merit.

Originally Posted by mfblume

This last point here cannot fit at all, I think. Paul said the person speaking in tongues is edified but no one else is. And then he said if he prays in tongues his understanding is unfruitful. Putting that altogether means that we pray in tongues, without understanding what we are praying, and we are edified since God obviously answers those prayers, but no one else is edified since they cannot understand the tongues. In every case in 1 Cor 14, tongues are not known by the hearers or speakers. Tongues is also called speaking "in the Spirit" as opposed to speaking in native languages with the understanding..

When Paul was speaking of tongues edifying only the speaker he was speaking of the gift of tongues. (You even said I made a strong case for this) This is further evidenced by him not limiting it to praying in tongues but instead using the phrase "speaketh in an unknown tongue" in verses 14:2 and 14:4, for there are many ways to speak and prayer is only one. (Just a reminder we know not everyone has the gift of tongues)

I suggest that since he used this same phrase "speaketh in an unknown tongue" in verse 14:13 that he is still speaking of the gift of tongues as he was at the start of the chapter when using this phrase. I also suggest that 14:14-17 is simply him offering an example of why one should want to interpret when they speak in tongues. (praying and blessing with the spirit in front of an audience definately both fall under the category speaking)

As for what I have bolded...

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

But I thought verse 14:2 said something about tongues speaking not to men but to God for no man understands. This seems like a contradiction because verse 28 clearly shows that he is speaking to himself and God. How can he be speaking to himself in tongues when verse 2 clearly says he he that speaks in a tongues don't speak to men?

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is exactly what he is saying, I think. Paul was saying that he would not speak in tongues in a church gathering unless it would be interpreted. He spoke in tongues more than any of them. And they did it a lot in church. But the difference is that Paul would not do it in church. This can only refer to prayer in tongues. Everything said about tongues and how it edifies oneself and how it ought not be done in gathers without interpretations all fits when one realizes that one is intended to do THAT alone.

As for Paul's claim of speaking in tongues more than them all. I see no reason it has to be referring to him praying privately in tongues. In fact I think he must be referring to something other than praying privately in tongues. Here is why...

What could give him the idea that he prayed privately in tongues more than them? I can think of no good reason anyone could ever assume this about someone they weren't around all the time. Maybe it was that he knew he was so much more spiritual than them and that more spiritual people pray privately in tongues more than not so spiritual people. That's really the only reason I can think that he could claim to pray privately in tongues more than anyone. But I don't think it takes a more spiritual person to pray in tongues more. What about you? Any ideas on how he could make such a claim in reference to praying privately in tongues?

Any thoughts mfblume? or others?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by jfrog

So with my position that 14:4 must be about the gift of tongues. So it seems that the gift of tongues can be self edifying. I won't elaborate anymore on the implications of this at the moment, but maybe in a future post.

As for the prayer question, I would ask why does anyone actually need to pray in anything other than their natural language?

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.

Just because one can't pray in tongues wouldn't mean that they couldn't pray, and the ability to pray is what is important in this scenario. So since there is no absolute need to be able to pray in tongues I would think God could possibly give that ability to some and not to others.

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?

I'm assuming you are meaning praying privately in tongues in the first bolded case. In the other bolded case, terminology is very important. I'm assuming by "operating a gift" you are not meaning that those who pray privately in tongues are actually using the gift of tongues. I'm assuming you meant they are edified when they do this privately because it is a supernatural experience from God. This idea has some merit.

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!

I suggest that since he used this same phrase "speaketh in an unknown tongue" in verse 14:13 that he is still speaking of the gift of tongues as he was at the start of the chapter when using this phrase.

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

I also suggest that 14:14-17 is simply him offering an example of why one should want to interpret when they speak in tongues. (praying and blessing with the spirit in front of an audience definately both fall under the category speaking)

As for what I have bolded...

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

But I thought verse 14:2 said something about tongues speaking not to men but to God for no man understands. This seems like a contradiction because verse 28 clearly shows that he is speaking to himself and God. How can he be speaking to himself in tongues when verse 2 clearly says he he that speaks in a tongues don't speak to men?

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.

As for Paul's claim of speaking in tongues more than them all. I see no reason it has to be referring to him praying privately in tongues. In fact I think he must be referring to something other than praying privately in tongues. Here is why...

What could give him the idea that he prayed privately in tongues more than them? I can think of no good reason anyone could ever assume this about someone they weren't around all the time. Maybe it was that he knew he was so much more spiritual than them and that more spiritual people pray privately in tongues more than not so spiritual people. That's really the only reason I can think that he could claim to pray privately in tongues more than anyone. But I don't think it takes a more spiritual person to pray in tongues more. What about you? Any ideas on how he could make such a claim in reference to praying privately in tongues?

Any thoughts mfblume? or others?

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.

[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).

[mfblume]

Option 2 seems to be closest to what I am saying. However, there may be another option you did not mention. I just have to take more time and think about this.