25 Year Anniversary

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

I didn't struggle with speaking in tongues it was more trouble to switch back over to English. lol

ah. well i notice that i could use an interpreter with MB

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by mfblume

If this is the case, I can see the distinction. The gift of tongues is to be interpreted as a message to people hearing. Evidence of tongues is for prayer and not to be interpreted. Tongues in Acts 2 were understood by hearers, but were not a message to them. They were praises to God, as prayer often is.

So you're saying the difference would be the setting, and not so much the language.... the same gift essentially, but operated differently depending on where you are at?

That would not be two separate and distinct tongues then, just a change of scenery.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah. well i notice that i could use an interpreter with MB

I'll admit at times Shaz, I have trouble following your train of thought, and an interpretation would be helpful... or clarification, lol...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

So you're saying the difference would be the setting, and not so much the language.... the same gift essentially, but operated differently depending on where you are at?

That would not be two separate and distinct tongues then, just a change of scenery.

Two different purposes of tongues. The main point is that the GIFT is not given to everyone in the way Paul speaks about prayer in tongues as something everyone can have. Why teach about praying in tongues and how it is between us and God and not meant for man to hear, if it's not something for everyone? Everyone needs this communication in prayer in tongues. Paul speaks of it in that way. But the gift is not for everyone. Only some will have the gift of tongues meant to be interpreted.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

ah. well i notice that i could use an interpreter with MB

Says the guy who thinks it's "legalism" and "law" to tell people they have to believe Christ died as them as their only means of salvation, and there are no works we can do to earn heaven. And who says And "fulfills the law" means "it saves you from sin."

But what is it with these constant references to me?

WOW lo,

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Says the guy who thinks it's "legalism" and "law" to tell people they have to believe Christ died as them as their only means of salvation, and there are no works we can do to earn heaven. And who says And "fulfills the law" means "it saves you from sin."

But what is it with these constant references to me?

WOW lo,

Maybe you need to start speaking Hawaiian ... lolo I say?

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Two different purposes of tongues. The main point is that the GIFT is not given to everyone in the way Paul speaks about prayer in tongues as something everyone can have. Why teach about praying in tongues and how it is between us and God and not meant for man to hear, if it's not something for everyone? Everyone needs this communication in prayer in tongues. Paul speaks of it in that way. But the gift is not for everyone. Only some will have the gift of tongues meant to be interpreted.

Ok, I do see that there can be different purposes of tongues, but still, the tongues sound the same whether you are by yourself or in a group. That to me does not designate a distinct difference in tongues, and would not truly be considered two DIFFERENT tongues... just the same tongue used differently depending on the setting.

If there were two separate and distinct tongues, they would give a clear and distinct sound, and be known as different. On the DOP (Day of Pentecost), there was no need for interpretation, everyone around understood what was being said. But then we have Paul calling for the need for an interpreter in group settings. So does this make the case for two different tongues, or not?

What I really think and believe is this... the DOP was a supernatural event that was the most powerful outpouring of the spirit ever because of its initial appearance. Never again have the cloven tongues of fire been demonstrated either. The initial outpouring of the gift of tongues was spectacular, and perhaps never to be repeated in that fashion...
a) no wind comes when people receive,
b) no cloven tongues sit on one's head,
c) there is not a universal understanding of what is being said when one receives.

So, you have the initial outpouring of tongues that did not need interpretation, because God supernaturally provided that understanding to all who were there.

But something changed between the DOP and the writing of 1 Cor. 14... because now tongues need to be interpreted in a group setting.

The tongues on the DOP were unique in that many things happened simultaneously, and this phenomenon never happened exactly again in scripture. And then in 1 Cor. 14 Paul is teaching that there must be interpretation of tongues in a group setting, which of course did not happen on the DOP, because it was the initial outpouring.

This shows that the gifting of tongues changes only in the setting, but there are not two different tongues, just a difference in when and how they are used.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Ok, I do see that there can be different purposes of tongues, but still, the tongues sound the same whether you are by yourself or in a group. That to me does not designate a distinct difference in tongues, and would not truly be considered two DIFFERENT tongues... just the same tongue used differently depending on the setting.

If there were two separate and distinct tongues, they would give a clear and distinct sound, and be known as different. On the DOP (Day of Pentecost), there was no need for interpretation, everyone around understood what was being said. But then we have Paul calling for the need for an interpreter in group settings. So does this make the case for two different tongues, or not?

What I really think and believe is this... the DOP was a supernatural event that was the most powerful outpouring of the spirit ever because of its initial appearance. Never again have the cloven tongues of fire been demonstrated either. The initial outpouring of the gift of tongues was spectacular, and perhaps never to be repeated in that fashion...
a) no wind comes when people receive,
b) no cloven tongues sit on one's head,
c) there is not a universal understanding of what is being said when one receives.

So, you have the initial outpouring of tongues that did not need interpretation, because God supernaturally provided that understanding to all who were there.

But something changed between the DOP and the writing of 1 Cor. 14... because now tongues need to be interpreted in a group setting.

The tongues on the DOP were unique in that many things happened simultaneously, and this phenomenon never happened exactly again in scripture. And then in 1 Cor. 14 Paul is teaching that there must be interpretation of tongues in a group setting, which of course did not happen on the DOP, because it was the initial outpouring.

This shows that the gifting of tongues changes only in the setting, but there are not two different tongues, just a difference in when and how they are used.

When I speak in tongues, praying or praising God, it doesn't in any way sound or feel the same as when I give tongues and interpretation. There is a huge difference, IMO.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Ok, I do see that there can be different purposes of tongues, but still, the tongues sound the same whether you are by yourself or in a group. That to me does not designate a distinct difference in tongues, and would not truly be considered two DIFFERENT tongues... just the same tongue used differently depending on the setting.

It's more the purpose. The gift is distinctly not for everyone, since Paul distinctly said God gives severally as He will to believers. Some more or less, IOW. But when he speaks of prayer in tongues there is not that distinction for some. Everyone can pray, and he talks as if everyone can pray in tongues. That would mean there is a difference.

If there were two separate and distinct tongues, they would give a clear and distinct sound, and be known as different.

Why? To me, the more important issue is if everyone gets the gift of tongues and or if everyone gets the tongues for prayer.

On the DOP (Day of Pentecost), there was no need for interpretation, everyone around understood what was being said.

As I already noted, what they heard was not a message to them. It was speaking of God's wonderful works, which is what praise to God is, if you read the Psalms, for example. But a message directed to a group of believers with tongues and interpretation is far from simply speaking praises to God as was heard on the day of Pentecost.

But then we have Paul calling for the need for an interpreter in group settings. So does this make the case for two different tongues, or not?

I think so. A message TO GOD from us in prayer needs no interpreter. David praised God for God's wonderful works: Compare:

Acts 2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Psa_40:5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.
Psa_78:4 We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done.
Psa_107:8 Oh that men would praise the LORD for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!


There is not message or instruction in simply giving God praise for His wonderful works. If the tongues had stated, "You need to praise God for his wonderful works," In acts 2, then that would be different. But it wasn't so. It was simply speaking of His wonderful works.

What I really think and believe is this... the DOP was a supernatural event that was the most powerful outpouring of the spirit ever because of its initial appearance. Never again have the cloven tongues of fire been demonstrated either. The initial outpouring of the gift of tongues was spectacular, and perhaps never to be repeated in that fashion...
a) no wind comes when people receive,
b) no cloven tongues sit on one's head,
c) there is not a universal understanding of what is being said when one receives.

So, you have the initial outpouring of tongues that did not need interpretation, because God supernaturally provided that understanding to all who were there.

However, those messages were still not instructional as the gift of tongues and interpretations is according to Paul.

But something changed between the DOP and the writing of 1 Cor. 14... because now tongues need to be interpreted in a group setting.

I understand that to be how the gift became understood.

The tongues on the DOP were unique in that many things happened simultaneously, and this phenomenon never happened exactly again in scripture.

Actually it did.

Acts 10:44-46 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

No place for interpretation.

Same here:

Acts 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

No interpretation is mentioned.

And then in 1 Cor. 14 Paul is teaching that there must be interpretation of tongues in a group setting, which of course did not happen on the DOP, because it was the initial outpouring.

...and because DOP was not tongues giving messages of instruction. I know I am repeating myself, but I see this distinction of messages TO GOD or TO MAN being the distinguishing factor between the gift of tongues and initial evidence of Spirit baptism. Who is the message directed to?

This shows that the gifting of tongues changes only in the setting, but there are not two different tongues, just a difference in when and how they are used.

They are languages. Tongues. That really is the only commonality between the two. The purpose of TO WHOM are the tongues spoken is the real factor showing difference.

This is not just UPC doctrine, and I have been out of the UPC now for 12 years. It is common amongst several Spirit-filled movements.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by mfblume

They are languages. Tongues. That really is the only commonality between the two. The purpose of TO WHOM are the tongues spoken is the real factor showing difference.

This is not just UPC doctrine, and I have been out of the UPC now for 12 years. It is common amongst several Spirit-filled movements.

OK, I do accept and see that there are differences in tongues being
1) Praising God, or praying to God
2) Speaking a message from God needing interpretation.

This would concur with PO's above statement that she (as have I) experienced two different types tongues in different settings.

The perspective you broke it down into makes logical sense. One tongue is glorifying the works of God not needing interpretation in the setting of prayer or praise, as opposed to the message of tongues that comes needing interpretation, being a message from God to the church.