Clear up confusion about tongues!

[awaken]

Then why does he say that if there is no one to interpret, the person who would speak in tongues should be silent?

People always leave out the part where he tells them to be silent in the church...but TO SPEAK TO GOD. That is tongues! Speaking to God. Acts 14:2
He is setting the guidlines in the assembly! ORDER! But he still gives the command not to forbid tongues~

 

[awaken]

How do you make that leap? That one must mean that it is a "private form"?

I answered that question in several post above!

 

[awaken]

Or what if the tongues he spoke was to be able to speak to others in other languages that he was unfamiliar with? You make the leap that it is a private form of tongues - leaps that you seem to make frequently.

Can you show me one example where tongues are used to address others?

 

[annsni]

People always leave out the part where he tells them to be silent in the church...but TO SPEAK TO GOD. That is tongues! Speaking to God. Acts 14:2
He is setting the guidlines in the assembly! ORDER! But he still gives the command not to forbid tongues~

If it is speaking to God in a private language by definition, why would one have to be silent and why would one be encouraged to have an interpreter?

 

[annsni]

Can you show me one example where tongues are used to address others?

Acts 2:5-12

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

 

[The Biblicist]

"For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful." (1 Corinthians 14:14)

Paul said that when we pray in tongues, it's our spirits which are praying (through the Holy Spirit), not our minds (because our minds are unfruitful while we pray with our spirits, Paul said). I see "praying in tongues" and "praying with my spirit" and "praying in the Spirit" all mean the same thing.

First, you are jerking this text out of its context. Paul's argument is very very clear. There is no profit in speaking in tongues if no one can understand what is being said. That is the whole point of verses 6-12


6 ¶ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.


In the context where tongues is being used inappropriately (in the church, to believers, not to the jews) this person is violating the principle of love and thus speaking "mysteries" or "speak into the air" things incomprehensible to all present in that context and no one profits from it. Only God knows what is being spoken. He simply is BUILDING UP himself by a FALSE APPEARANCE of spirituality. Paul's conclusion is exercise spiritual gifts for edifying.

Paul follows this reasoned principle (vv. 6-11) and conclusion (vv. 12-13) with his own personal illustration meant to reinforce his conclusion in verses 12-13 and show what he means. He first introduces "IF" considerations followed by "I WILL" determinations.


14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

This is precisely what he previously described as to "speak into the air" and what he previously denied provided any "profit." The sounds are being emitted for serve not fruitful purpose either to the listeners or the speaker. This is what he previously described as sounds without "distinction" and "barbarian" in nature. The activity of his spirit serves no edifying purpose for anyone.




15 ¶ What is it then? He has already answered that question! It is "unfruitful" worthless, empty sounds in the air, barbaric, nothing other than drawing attention to self and thus edifying in a negative sense - building yourself up before people by an appearance of spirituality.


I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Notice everything said previously is introduced by the "IF" but here there is an assertion of what Paul will do in contrast to what he will not do but only considered by "IF".

Note the words "I will PRAY WITH the spirit" showing that prayer with comprehension and understanding can be joined "with the spirit" and thus "in the spirit" includes praying with comprehension as much as without comprehension and so he is not teaching that to pray "in the spirit" means only by tongues. He could have added any other variety of expressing than singing. He could have said, preaching, teaching, exhorting, etc. There are not different kinds of tongues but tongues is some known language that can be verbalized any number of ways (preaching, teaching, prayering, singing, etc.). It all comes out of the mouth.


16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.[/I]

He has stated what he will not do versus what he will do. He will use tongues "with understanding" but that too does not meet Paul's rule of edification if there are others listening because they do not understand what you are saying.

Your problem is that you jerk words, phrases and verses out of context and then form your own context to interpret them. That is simply being dishonest with God's Word.

 

[awaken]

If it is speaking to God in a private language by definition, why would one have to be silent and why would one be encouraged to have an interpreter?

Because without an interpretation it will not edify the assembly. They were only to keep silent if there was not an interpretation and only two or three in turn.

 

[awaken]

Acts 2:5-12

5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, 11 both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians—we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God.”

They were not addressing the crowd. Peter addressed the crowd in vs.14.
Yes, the crowd understood what they were saying, but they were not preaching to the crowd.

 

[Revmitchell]

They were not addressing the crowd. Peter addressed the crowd in vs.14.
Yes, the crowd understood what they were saying, but they were not preaching to the crowd.

So you believe (falsely) that they were just outside in their private prayer language and everyone else just happen to hear them? Really?

 

[The Biblicist]

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." (1 Corinthians 14:18-19)


Paul was thankful that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. This is a reference to the private form of tongues, because in the very next sentence Paul said, "But in the church..."

That is right! Outside of the church, where he uses tongues according to the Scriptures he clearly sets forth in verses 20-22 he speaks more than they all do OUTSIDE of the church.

Moreover, OUTSIDE of the church "WILL" not speak in tongues at any time without his understanding and the understanding being given to those listening to him.

Therefore, Paul spoke in tongues more than anyone else outside of church,

The only BIBLICAL design for tongues is OUTSIDE the church (1 Cor. 14:20-22). It was never designed for personal use or for believers (v. 23).

You miss the obvious and what is spelled out in the context. He speaks more tongues than they all according to the Biblical design given for tongues (vv. 20-22) and that is why he does not speak in tongues in the church. Outside of the church he never speaks in tongues without understanding. Outside the church he uses it according to God's Word for its use OUTSIDE the church (vv. 20-21). He does not use it for "believers" either the church or for himself (he is a believer). Inside the church he does not allow it to be used without understanding and without restrictions and only enclosed within those guidelines does he allow for it in the church. Such restrictions would naturally cause it to cease in the church because it can't be used to build up yourself over others.

Whenever, it is used WRONGLY as described it is always UNKNOWN to the speaker and/or the hearers - that is the WRONG use of tongues. That is the Barbarian use of tongues. That is speaking into the air use of tongues. That is the UNFRUITFUL use of tongues. That is the SELF-edifying use in a contrary sense to love use of tongues. That is the unspiritual use of tongues.

 

[awaken]

First, you are jerking this text out of its context. Paul's argument is very very clear. There is no profit in speaking in tongues if no one can understand what is being said. That is the whole point of verses 6-12

I agree that Paul is correcting the assembly use of tongues. Without the interpretation it will not benefit the listeners.

6 ¶ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
11 Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.
12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.


In the context where tongues is being used inappropriately (in the church, to believers, not to the jews) this person is violating the principle of love and thus speaking "mysteries" or "speak into the air" things incomprehensible to all present in that context and no one profits from it. Only God knows what is being spoken. He simply is BUILDING UP himself by a FALSE APPEARANCE of spirituality. Paul's conclusion is exercise spiritual gifts for edifying.

You added the building yourself up by false appearance of spirituality! But I do agree with Paul..
Paul was continuing to explain that an uninterpreted message given in tongues to the church congregation does not edify them (build them up in their faith) because they can't understand what is being said. On the other hand, an interpreted message in tongues does edify the congregation because it results in a revelation or a word of knowledge or a word of prophecy or a word of instruction. In other words, the public form of tongues needs to be interpreted into the local language, otherwise the speaker is just speaking into the air and not doing anybody (other than himself) any good. Paul was saying that using the private form of tongues in a public fashion is a waste of people's time, and apparently this is what some of the people in the Corinthian church were doing.

Paul follows this reasoned principle (vv. 6-11) and conclusion (vv. 12-13) with his own personal illustration meant to reinforce his conclusion in verses 12-13 and show what he means. He first introduces "IF" considerations followed by "I WILL" determinations.


14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

This is precisely what he previously described as to "speak into the air" and what he previously denied provided any "profit." The sounds are being emitted for serve not fruitful purpose either to the listeners or the speaker. This is what he previously described as sounds without "distinction" and "barbarian" in nature. The activity of his spirit serves no edifying purpose for anyone.

If I was in a room and someone was speaking Spanish..it might as well be barbarian..because I could not understand them.
Since speaking to a church congregation in tongues does not edify anyone by itself (1 Corinthians 14:6-12), the speaker should pray to receive the interpretation so that the church can be instructed. By definition, this is a reference to the public form of tongues.
In addition, if we are praying to God in the Spirit (the private form of tongues), we can ask for the interpretation and God will sometimes give it to us in order to instruct us.

15 ¶ What is it then? He has already answered that question! It is "unfruitful" worthless, empty sounds in the air, barbaric, nothing other than drawing attention to self and thus edifying in a negative sense - building yourself up before people by an appearance of spirituality.

Again you added the appearance of spirituality!

I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Notice everything said previously is introduced by the "IF" but here there is an assertion of what Paul will do in contrast to what he will not do but only considered by "IF".

Note the words "I will PRAY WITH the spirit" showing that prayer with comprehension and understanding can be joined "with the spirit" and thus "in the spirit" includes praying with comprehension as much as without comprehension and so he is not teaching that to pray "in the spirit" means only by tongues. He could have added any other variety of expressing than singing. He could have said, preaching, teaching, exhorting, etc. There are not different kinds of tongues but tongues is some known language that can be verbalized any number of ways (preaching, teaching, prayering, singing, etc.). It all comes out of the mouth.

Praying and singing is worshiping God! Talking to God!

16 Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?
17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.[/I]

He has stated what he will not do versus what he will do. He will use tongues "with understanding" but that too does not meet Paul's rule of edification if there are others listening because they do not understand what you are saying.

Your problem is that you jerk words, phrases and verses out of context and then form your own context to interpret them. That is simply being dishonest with God's Word.

You ignore too many scriptures to prove your point therefore you interpretation contradicts other scriptures concerning tongues.

 

[annsni]

Because without an interpretation it will not edify the assembly. They were only to keep silent if there was not an interpretation and only two or three in turn.

But if it's a private prayer language between just you and God, why would it even be spoken in the assembly?

 

[The Biblicist]

But if it's a private prayer language between just you and God, why would it even be spoken in the assembly?

Remember he has concocted out of thin air there are two different types of tongues. I say "concocted" because he has to jerk scripture out of its proper context and place it in his own prepared context to justify his imaginations.

 

[annsni]

They were not addressing the crowd. Peter addressed the crowd in vs.14.
Yes, the crowd understood what they were saying, but they were not preaching to the crowd.

They were telling of the mighty works that God has done - not to the crowd? That's interesting. You see, if tongues is a private prayer language, then how could the public understand? Because God caused them to speak in languages to share with the people the great and mighty works that He had done. If it were just to God, then it wouldn't have been understandable. Your theory makes no sense in light of Scripture.

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you show me one example where tongues are used to address others?

Paul explicitly quotes Isaiah 28:11-12 which explicitly states it as a sign directly addressed to the Jews and explicilty describes their reactions "for all that they will not believe me saith the Lord."

On Pentecost the Jews claimed they understood the tongues and said what was being spoken. So you believe the Holy Spirit wrote led Isaiah to say that tongues were given to Israel for the express purpose they would receive it as a sign that the promised "rest" had come and yet the same Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost led and empowerd the twelve to use it for some other purpose than what God predicted and designed it for?

 

[awaken]

So you believe (falsely) that they were just outside in their private prayer language and everyone else just happen to hear them? Really?

What were they doing on the Day of Pentecost?

 

[awaken]

But if it's a private prayer language between just you and God, why would it even be spoken in the assembly?

Why do you pray out loud in an assembly?

 

[awaken]

Remember he has concocted out of thin air there are two different types of tongues. I say "concocted" because he has to jerk scripture out of its proper context and place it in his own prepared context to justify his imaginations.

If you do not separate the two you contradict scriptures! Acts 2, 10 were not speaking to man but to God! That is prayer!
If you are called to speak in tongues in the assembly you have to have an interpretation. That is to edify the church!
Same tongue..Speaking to God! I have explained this before!
Tell me who interpreted in Acts 10 or 19?

 

[Revmitchell]

What were they doing on the Day of Pentecost?

I will take that as a yes. silly

 

[The Biblicist]

Why do you pray out loud in an assembly?

your whole concept of a private prayer tongue is completely based upon jerking a text out of its context and reinterpreting it according to your own fabricated context.

The very thing Paul is considering which is noted by the word "IF" (1 Cor. 14:14) is being totally rejected by Paul by the following words "I WILL" (1 Cor. 14:15). You are turning the whole argument of Paul from 1 Cor. 14:6-15 completely upside down in order to justify what is the exact kind of practice found in major occults to this present day.