Pitfalls in Solely Relying on Acts for doctrine?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

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!

And, when we as a group "pray in tongues" some visitors might think we are crazy. Praying in tongues is best left to a private setting or in a group where all are already believers and know what is going on.

[OneAccord]

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 don't think Paul was referring to ALL tongues. I stated yesterday that, IMO, there are at least 3 different types of tongues. "Other tongues"- commonly called the initial evidence, "Unknown tongues" -prayer language, and "Prophetic tongues" - to be interpreted.

When Paul wrote this: 1Cr 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? he was referring to "prophetic utterances or tongues". These are messages directed to the assembly. If one or more stands (and I've seen maybe a dozen speaking "prophetic utternances" at the same time- completely out of order) to speak in tongues to an assembly without an interpreter it would cause confusion. Paul said they should only do so, praying that they may interprete. He added that if no interpreter (a separate spiritual gift) is present, then there should be no "prophetic tongues". This doesn't impede the estatic utterances of "other tongues" or praying in "unknown tongues".

Now, another point. If, in fact, "other tongues" (Acts 2:4) is the supernatural ability to speak in other "earthly languages" then, my question is, Why the need for the spiritual gift of interpretation? I do believe the foriegn visitors in Jerusalem heard the disciples speaking in their own langugage, but I believe this to be the gift of "divers kinds of tongues" in operation. The disciples were "prophesying" - just as Joel had said- in "prophetic utterances". They were "interpreting" into the language of the hearers.

On a side note: We had a deaf girl attending our church. She had never been saved because no one knew how to "speak" to her. A man was saved in our church I'll call Harold. When Harold would "get in the spirit", his hands would do strange things. The girl began watching him, and began to write something. A few minutes later, she went to the altar, repented and recieved the Holy Ghost and, yes, spoke in tongues. From then on, Harold interpreted as the preacher preached, using his hands to convey the words to the girl. The thing is, Harld did not know the American sign language. To my knowledge, Harold never "spoke" in tongues audibly. God used his hands rather than his tongue to interprete the Word of God. The girl woud write down what "Harold" would say and then we could compare what she had written to audible tapes of the sermon. It was almost always word for word.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by OneAccord

I don't think Paul was referring to ALL tongues. I stated yesterday that, IMO, there are at least 3 different types of tongues. "Other tongues"- commonly called the initial evidence, "Unknown tongues" -prayer language, and "Prophetic tongues" - to be interpreted.

When Paul wrote this: 1Cr 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in [those that are] unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad? he was referring to "prophetic utterances or tongues". These are messages directed to the assembly. If one or more stands (and I've seen maybe a dozen speaking "prophetic utternances" at the same time- completely out of order) to speak in tongues to an assembly without an interpreter it would cause confusion. Paul said they should only do so, praying that they may interprete. He added that if no interpreter (a separate spiritual gift) is present, then there should be no "prophetic tongues". This doesn't impede the estatic utterances of "other tongues" or praying in "unknown tongues".


.

I hear what you are saying but I question whether the distictions are that clear. Paul seems to be saying tongues themselves (if they are not understood or interpreted) are not for the public assembly.

Ecstatic utterances of "other tongues", if heard by the assembly (including unbelievers) are in essence the very same as what you are calling "Prophetic tongues". One might argue the difference is a question of addressing the assembly or not. Were this the case, it would become a matter of volume and perhaps discernment on the part of church leadership. Neither of which changes how an unbeliever would perceive the event.

[Steve Epley]

Y'all forgive me but I have had these arguments and have grown weary. But I might revive and take another lick.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Stephen Hoover

I hear what you are saying but I question whether the distictions are that clear. Paul seems to be saying tongues themselves (if they are not understood or interpreted) are not for the public assembly.

Ecstatic utterances of "other tongues", if heard by the assembly (including unbelievers) are in essence the very same as what you are calling "Prophetic tongues". One might argue the difference is a question of addressing the assembly or not. Were this the case, it would become a matter of volume and perhaps discernment on the part of church leadership. Neither of which changes how an unbeliever would perceive the event.

Stephen,
Are you saying that at no time would a saint, in a church setting, ever utter anything in tongues unless they felt it would be tongues and interpretation or prophesy?

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Stephen,
Are you saying that at no time would a saint, in a church setting, ever utter anything in tongues unless they felt it would be tongues and interpretation or prophesy?

I believe that is the only way one can read 1 Cor. 14

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

The literal translation of Mark 16 is "they shall speak in new languages" and it doesn't refer to an unknown tongue, it's referring to preaching the gospel in every tongue.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts, honestly? Well, to be frank, I'm a bit befuddled by some of these questions. If I didnt know better, I'd have to wonder if these questions really reflect your own thoughts/beliefs, or if you're just "throwing them out there" to see how I respond to them. But anyway...

In the interest of time, I'm going to take your post in 2 parts. I'll deal with the first part now, and try to come back later for the second part as time permits.

You say speaking in tongues refers to preaching the gospel (?). Frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that. So I'll start with a question: what scriptures do you see that indicates that "speaking in tongues" referred to preaching the gospel? Frankly, I dont believe there are any such scriputures, but I'd be interested in seeing what you provide us with on that.

But to answer your question...
Lets just go back to Jesus words in that passage in question. He said:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

The key word there is sign. Obviously, the word "sign" is a referring to miracle, something supernatural. The other things listed there are clearly beyond human capability (driving out demons, healing the sick, being unharmed by poison or serpents, etc). So clearly he is referring to things that are specifically enabled by the miraculous power of God.

Now for example if I were to learn Spanish or French, and go to Mexico or France to preach the gospel, I'd be spreading the gospel in a language that I've learned, but that would not be a miraculous sign...because I'd be speaking based on an ability I already have. If a person goes and preaches the gospel in a foreign language they know, there is NOTHING supernatural about that. That wouldnt even make sense in the context of Jesus's words in Mark 16. Clearly, speaking in tongues, as Jesus referred to in those verses, would only be a sign or miracle if it were unknown to the person speaking it.

Secondly, speaking in tongues was never for preaching the gospel. There's just no scripture anywhere for that. In Acts 2:11 it says "they were speaking the wonderful words of God" (that is, praise) but the gospel was not preached to them in tongues. After they asked "what meaneth this" that Paul preached the gospel of Christ to them. There were 15 nations/languages spoken of there (v 9-11) but paul spoke to them in a common language they all understood -- probably Greek, or maybe aramaic. Thus we see clearly that tongues served as a sign, but it was not used for preaching.

Looking further in scripture, where speaking in tongues is mentioned, it is never for preaching the gospel. (In the book of Acts, for example, we see incidents of people speaking in tongues when they recieved the Holy Ghost, but the idea of people speaking in tongues as a method of sharing the gospel is just not there. )

Acts 10, Cornelius's house spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost, after the gospel was preached to them in their own language by Peter.

Acts 19, The former disciples spoke in tongues after the word was preached/taught to them by Paul.

-------

1 Cor. 14... Paul speaks of tongues as being something used by a believer in private prayer (14:2,4, 14-16), or in conjunction with the gift of interpretation (14:5-6, 26-28) to edify the church body. 1 Cor 12 and 14 are the 2 chapters that give us the NT's most detailed explanation of the use and purpose of spiritual gifts, but Paul says nothing there about tongues being for preaching the gospel.


So this whole idea of tongues being for the preaching of the gospel is just not supported by scripture at all.

[Michael Phelps]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

My thoughts, honestly? Well, to be frank, I'm a bit befuddled by some of these questions. If I didnt know better, I'd have to wonder if these questions really reflect your own thoughts/beliefs, or if you're just "throwing them out there" to see how I respond to them. But anyway...

In the interest of time, I'm going to take your post in 2 parts. I'll deal with the first part now, and try to come back later for the second part as time permits.

You say speaking in tongues refers to preaching the gospel (?). Frankly, I'm flabbergasted by that. So I'll start with a question: what scriptures do you see that indicates that "speaking in tongues" referred to preaching the gospel? Frankly, I dont believe there are any such scriputures, but I'd be interested in seeing what you provide us with on that.

But to answer your question...
Lets just go back to Jesus words in that passage in question. He said:

"17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

The key word there is sign. Obviously, the word "sign" is a referring to miracle, something supernatural. The other things listed there are clearly beyond human capability (driving out demons, healing the sick, being unharmed by poison or serpents, etc). So clearly he is referring to things that are specifically enabled by the miraculous power of God.

Now for example if I were to learn Spanish or French, and go to Mexico or France to preach the gospel, I'd be spreading the gospel in a language that I've learned, but that would not be a miraculous sign...because I'd be speaking based on an ability I already have. If a person goes and preaches the gospel in a foreign language they know, there is NOTHING supernatural about that. That wouldnt even make sense in the context of Jesus's words in Mark 16. Clearly, speaking in tongues, as Jesus referred to in those verses, would only be a sign or miracle if it were unknown to the person speaking it.

Secondly, speaking in tongues was never for preaching the gospel. There's just no scripture anywhere for that. In Acts 2:11 it says "they were speaking the wonderful words of God" (that is, praise) but the gospel was not preached to them in tongues. After they asked "what meaneth this" that Paul preached the gospel of Christ to them. There were 15 nations/languages spoken of there (v 9-11) but paul spoke to them in a common language they all understood -- probably Greek, or maybe aramaic. Thus we see clearly that tongues served as a sign, but it was not used for preaching.

Looking further in scripture, where speaking in tongues is mentioned, it is never for preaching the gospel. (In the book of Acts, for example, we see incidents of people speaking in tongues when they recieved the Holy Ghost, but the idea of people speaking in tongues as a method of sharing the gospel is just not there. )

Acts 10, Cornelius's house spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost, after the gospel was preached to them in their own language by Peter.

Acts 19, The former disciples spoke in tongues after the word was preached/taught to them by Paul.

-------

1 Cor. 14... Paul speaks of tongues as being something used by a believer in private prayer (14:2,4, 14-16), or in conjunction with the gift of interpretation (14:5-6, 26-28) to edify the church body. 1 Cor 12 and 14 are the 2 chapters that give us the NT's most detailed explanation of the use and purpose of spiritual gifts, but Paul says nothing there about tongues being for preaching the gospel.


So this whole idea of tongues being for the preaching of the gospel is just not supported by scripture at all.

I appreciate your insight, TR, and I thank you for taking the time to reply.

The original translation of Mark 16 says "In my name they will speak in new languages".........it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".

Now, as to whether God miraculously endowed those that "went into ALL the world" with the ability to speak in the native tongue of the land into which they were sent, I don't know, but it would certainly make sense to me.

However, that's just speculation on my part.

I do know one thing - the entire continent of Asia was evangelized with the gospel within the space of 2 and 1/2 years without the aid of television, internet, tapes, or vehicles for these folks to drive across an entire continent.

So, it would certainly not be beyond our God to enable believers to "speak with a new language that they had not learned" in order to accomplish this task.


Now, the points I've been trying to make all along are that there is little or no Biblical backing to distinguish between the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, which was every man speaking in a language he didn't understand, and the gift of tongues - which was either speaking in a known language but one the speaker didn't understand, or an unknown tongue that was followed by an interpretation.

(And, as a side bar, I'm just curious as to why many Apostolics will take the sign of tongues in Mark 16, but leave the snakes and poison alone, lol.)

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I appreciate your insight, TR, and I thank you for taking the time to reply.

The original translation of Mark 16 says "In my name they will speak in new languages".........it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".

Now, as to whether God miraculously endowed those that "went into ALL the world" with the ability to speak in the native tongue of the land into which they were sent, I don't know, but it would certainly make sense to me.

However, that's just speculation on my part.

I do know one thing - the entire continent of Asia was evangelized with the gospel within the space of 2 and 1/2 years without the aid of television, internet, tapes, or vehicles for these folks to drive across an entire continent.

So, it would certainly not be beyond our God to enable believers to "speak with a new language that they had not learned" in order to accomplish this task.

Now, the points I've been trying to make all along are that there is little or no Biblical backing to distinguish between the initial sign of the Holy Ghost, which was every man speaking in a language he didn't understand, and the gift of tongues - which was either speaking in a known language but one the speaker didn't understand, or an unknown tongue that was followed by an interpretation.

(And, as a side bar, I'm just curious as to why many Apostolics will take the sign of tongues in Mark 16, but leave the snakes and poison alone, lol.)

There's definitlely a lots of speculation there, Mike. Lots of it, especially in that bolded parts.
I cant base my theology on speculation though. I try to stick to what's in the text. There's enough there for me to work with, rather than gettiing into a lot of extra-biblical speculation.

Besides, tongues and languages mean the exact same thing... so I'm not sure what your point is when you choose to use the words separately and disctinctly, as if theres some distinction in meaning. New tongues/new languages/unknown tongues/unknown languages... I think we're talking about the same thing.

Also, you keep referring to "unknown tongues" (you say: "it doesn't say anything about "unknown tongues".") Ok. I dont see why that is an issue. Its unknown to the speaker; I think that's the whole point. And to use Jesus's words "they shall speak with new tongues"... they're "new" to the speaker -- that's what makes it a supernatural sign. I'm really not seeing why you seem to place such significance on the whole "unknown tongues" part of it.

[rgcraig]

Note to file:

AFF can have a thread where people discuss issues intelligently without fussing and fighting.