Featured praying = speaking to God

Praying in tongues did not help the spiritual life of the Corinthians. They were CARNAL and Paul could not speak to them as "spiritual." I have never met a tongue speaker who was "spiritual." In fact, every discussion that I have had with such they are more interested in an experience and defending it then any credible evidence of spirituality or spiritual growth. Indeed, they have little use for the scriptures except to support their experiences and rely more on their experiences for leadership than God's Word.

I remember talking to one tongue speaker a few years ago who claimed that the baptism in the Spirit enabled him to live above sin. We got into a discussion and he got so frustrated that he cursed and I said, "ooops there goes your living above sin".

 

Do you really believe that the principle of edification for others and SELF is restricted within four walls and outside those four walls regardless of others you are free to babble? He is not referring to just within the church but the use of tongues for any other purpose than the God ordained purpose spelled out in plain English in verses 20-22. That use is where God speaks to "this people" whose rulers reside "in Jerusalem" through the lips and tongues of others.

Read slowly what I am about to say and see if you can grasp it. You selectively choose scripture at the expense of other scripture and build your doctrine on selective texts that you interpret to contradict other texts. In the very context where use of Tongues are being corrected Paul explicitly and clearly quotes Isaiah 28:11-15 in a summary form that clearly and explicitly states that God uses tongue speakers to talk "TO THIS PEOPLE" whose rulers are "IN JERUSALEM". So for you to say that tongues is speaking to God is false! Tongues may be used to pray to God as pray is to God but that is not the only use of tongues nor is it the primary biblical purpose for tongues as Paul gives the primary biblical use of tongues in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 while PLACING RESTRICTIONS ON EVERY OTHER USE.

So you trash what paul says in simple easy understandable langauge in 1 Cor. 14:20-22 and then pervert what happened in Acts 2. God spoke to those people in Acts 2 and they understood what He was saying through those tongue speakers exactly as Isaiah 28:11 and 1 Cor. 14:21 says!

God spoke to those jews in Acts 10 as a sign that he had accepted Gentiles for baptism and membership in the all Jewish Chruch and they understood that sign.

Don't add your hogwash interpetation! They understood that God was speaking to them through men natually incapable of such speech and took it as a sign from God and understood what God was saying through them.

 

I have never experienced murdering someone and don't need to experience it to know it is wrong. I never experienced ecstatic utterances and don't need to experience it to know it is not Biblical tongues.

The Biblical rule is all experiences must be subjected to God's Word not God's word to experiences - Isa. 8:20. Your claims do not match God's Word and therefore I do not need to experience your claims to know they are wrong any more than I need to experience barking like a dog, slithering like a snake and uncontrolable laughing to know they are demonic in nature.

 

Isa. 28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

1 Cor. 14:21 ¶ In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claim that "with men" and with their lips GOD is speaking in other tongues TO THIS PEOPLE??

Do you or do you not receive and accept that both Isaiah and Paul claimed that those people to whom God speaks with the lips and tongues of other men to THIS PEOPLE that those people WILL NOT BELIEVE as a result?

Do you or do you not receive and accept that in context "THIS PEOPLE" refers to the Jewish nation and their rulers are located in Jerusalem?

Isa. 28:14 ¶ Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Do you or do you not receive and accept that God's word TWICE clearly states that tongues is for God to speak to this people and that it is Biblically inaccurate to say that tongues speaking is only to God.

 

You have never been able to provide a reasonable and biblical response to either 1 cor. 12:7-11 or 1 Cor. 12:29-30. Both of which completely expose and repudiate your view of tongues and proves that your version is nothing more than the command esctatic utterance type.

1. You responded by attempting to claim that verses 29-30 refer to manifestations to the same persons at various time. He uses the word "all" not the word "you" or "ye" which would be required if these are manifestations at different times to the same persons. Furthermore you imaginary interpretation directly contradicts the "allos" and "hertos" in verses 7-11.

2. You responded by attempting to claim that verses 7-11 did not mean "to another" or different person than the one previously mentioned.

 

you have addressed it with imaginary interpretations that have no contextual basis whatsoever! Your interpretations remind me of others pentecostals that I have encountered who drew their interpretations from their feelings, dreams or imaginations but not from any contextual based interpretation of God's Word.

The Biblical fact is that both Isaiah and Paul say that tongues is God using the lips and tongues of men to SPEAK TO THIS PEOPLE whose rulers live in Jerusalem!

The Biblical fact is that in Acts 2 the crowd OF JEWS understood what was being spoken in tongues because God spoke to them with the lips and tongues of men supernaturally and they understood it as a "sign" from God to them and that is what drew the crowd.

The Biblical fact is that in Acts 10 the JEWISH church IN JERUSALEM would not have accepted gentiles as members if God had not given these UNBELIEVING JEWS (unbelieving that gentiles be received on equal standing with Jews) a sign that God had accepted them. It was on that visible sign that Peter asked can any man forbid baptism to them as they received the same gift as they did.

 

Exactly my point! They both heard the content of tongues, as it was in their own languauge and received it as a "sign" from God because THREE TIMES they emphasized that these men could not speak like that naturally and so they received it as a supernatural sign. What they believed was the gospel preached after they heard and received this sign. This is in perfect harmony with Isaiah 28:11-12,16 and 1 Cor. 14:21-22. It was received by the Jews as a "sign" from God to them to hear and believe the gospel message that was immediately presented to them AFTER the tongues.

1. Acts DOES NOT use the term "praising God" but rather they heard them speak about "THE WONDERFUL WORKS OF GOD"! What they believed in was the gospel preached after they received this sign from God.

2. The Bible never says "tongues is a praise language" nor does the Bible ever RESTRICT "tongues to speaking to God" as Paul also says tongues is God speaking TO MEN - 1 cor. 14:21; Isa. 28:11

ONLY when Tongues are in the form of a prayer, is it men speaking to God OR when there are no interpreter the speaker regardless of what form he may be using tongues (speaketh, praying, signing, etc.) speaks into the air and none undestand him but God and thus he speaks to God as his sole audiance. The immediate context demands this interpretation (vv. 3-12) of 1 Cor. 14:2.

But when tongues are used accorrding to God's PRIMARY BIBLICAL DESIGN it it is God speaking to men -Jewish persons - Isa. 28:11-12,16; 1 Cor. 14:21-22.

 

It was the Feast of Pentecost.
Jews from over 13 different nations were there. Look at the passage. You can count them if you wish.
Historians believe that there were well over 100,000 Jews present for that feast. Out of that 100,00 only 3,000 got saved. Considering the emphasis that we put on "The Day of Pentecost" that isn't very many is it? The rest rejected their Messiah even though they heard the sign; the very one prophesied in Isaiah 28; one they knew about. John confirms this.

John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

From then on every time tongues was used it was a sign to the Jews that they should repent, or face judgment. In 70 A.D. they faced judgment. Tongues have ceased. The sign has been removed.

Scripture never contradicts itself. If you have it contradicting itself it is a evidence that you have it wrong.
You have a wrong definition in Acts 2.
The Greek word is "lelew." It is the most common word to speak or to say. It has nothing to do with prayer, nothing whatsoever. "And they were saying." That is not prayer. Accept it. You are reinterpreting the Bible; stretching its literal interpretation to your own fancy to fit your own man-made religion. You invent things as you go along. The verb "to speak" is not prayer. They weren't praying. They were speaking.

How hear we every man in our own language "speak" in our own language.
There is not any indication anywhere that any of them were praying--not by the ones hearing, nor by the ones speaking. You can't make up your own definitions as you go along your merry way.

 

Your response to my post above was:

THis section of scriptures blends the manifestations and the ministries, and points out that not everyone will be energized in the same way at the same time.


There is no blending at all but a clear distingusihing between ministries and gifts. The fact he uses the negative in the Greek text in every phrase with the word "all" completely repudiates your interpretation that he is merely denying the same person receives these various gifts at the same point in time. His use of "allos" versus "heteros" in verses 7-11 completely repudiate this theory that he is speaking about the SAME person but different manifestations at various times.

"to another [allos]....to another [heteros] - v. 8

1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 completely repudiates your whole position on tongues that it is given to all Christians and your explanations are completely repudiated by Paul's language especially his use of "allos" and "heteros."

 

Every Christian prays in the spirit. It has nothing to do with tongues. As I have been saying, you just redefine words to your own liking.
The emphasis there is, the person in the church was praying aloud. He was praying in tongues, praying aloud, in public, and thus had an interpreter so that all would know when to say "Amen."

1 Corinthians 14:16 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?
--It is in public, obviously! It had to be understood by all.
What language do you pray in that all can understand, and thus say "Amen" at the end of your prayer. Please tell us. If it is something other than English, and the rest can't understand it, then it is not of God (assuming you don't know a second language).

Your opinion; unsubstantiated. You haven't proved that yet. The person above prayed publicly aloud. So would someone preaching or prophesying. In Acts 2, 10, and 19 there was no praying in tongues.

In what Scripture?
There is no Scripture where Paul condones praying silently in tongues. Nowhere! Every where they needed an interpreter. It was for edification. It had to have understanding.

The context does. The Jews were judged by 70 A.D.
It was a sign to the Jews.
The apostles had died by the end of the first century. They were a sign for the apostles.
Thus it was for first century Christians. These truths are self-evident.

Paul did not say "forbid not" to you living 2,000 years after the Corinthian Church. He was speaking to first century Corinthians. To no other church did he ever address this problem.
This phenomena that you have is only 100 years old, and to defend it you are throwing out 1900 years of history.

Here is verse 28:
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.
--He tells you to keep silent because you don't know what you say.
No one can interpret for you; you don't even know what language you speak in. That in itself would tell you its wrong. You have a great misunderstanding of tongues.
"Let him speak to himself and to God" does not mean or say "in tongues."
Why would it. If you can speak in your own language to God, why wouldn't you? Don't you want God to understand you?

You can murder people anywhere too, can't you?
Wrong is wrong. If it is wrong in the church it is wrong at home.
If you need an interpreter in the church you need one at home.
If you can't understand yourself in the church, you can't understand at home.
If you can't edify others, you can't edify yourself.
Wrong is wrong.