Featured praying = speaking to God

Isa. 8:20 is your problem! Every instant of tongue speaking in the book of Acts had listeners who confirmed what they did but YOU HAVE NONE! The Biblical gift is KNOWN languages but even YOU cannot discern what language your speaking and neither can anyone else who has ever heard you. So much for your experience as it is no better than the hindu's who do the same babbling and explain their experience the very same way. I had heard them myself and watched them and there is not one visible audible difference in the way their experience and the common Pentecostal. They are slain in the Spirit and fall on the ground out of control rather than keeping their spirit under control. They confess to healings and the feeling of elecricity and tingling throughout their bodies and euphoria when speaking tongues. etc.

Notice that you skip verses 3-12???? I wonder why? Context will not support your interpretation of verse 2 so you just JERK IT OUT! This is how you MUST use this text! You MUST jerk it out as you cannot possibly justify your interpretation if verse 3-12 are recognized as the explanation.

This is stated by Paul in order to REBUKE this behavior not commend it or don't you get that?

This is stated to be rebuked in verse 16-17 and so again it is a rebuke not a commendation or don't you get that?

This is Paul's doctrine and proper use of tongues whenever it is used by church members other than its stated Biblical purpose in Isaiah 28:11-15/1 Cor. 14:21-22.

Yes, according to his guidelines and the MATURE Biblical understanding of God's design for tongues (vv. 20-23). He was a Missionary and as a Missionary he regularly went first to the DISPERSED Jewish people who had diverse native languages and then to the Gentiles. This was his CONSTANT practice and thus he was constantly using tongues in the Mature Biblical stated purpose! You think he is going to tell them to grow up and be mature about tongues and then give them the Biblical purpose and then repudiate it by his own practice??????? Think for a change!

You have turned a negative restrictive rebuke into a postive command. he is not commanding them to pray privately but telling them to shut up in the church and keep it to themselves.

 

First, you refuse to differ between the rebuke of speaking in tongues in the church without interpretation as opposed to the use of tongues OUTSIDE the church as a missionary sign to the Jews as clearly and explicitly stated by both Isaiah 28:11-15 and 1 Cor. 14:20-22. Hence, as long as you play this seesaw game and pit one against the other and ignore the Jewish sign gift there can be no reasoning with you.

Can't you grasp my argument? They were using it in keeping with Isaiah 28:11-15 and that instruction has the LOST JEWS as its focus and those LOST JEWS were the interpreters. The fact that these LOST JEWS heard it and interpreted it proves it is not a congregational use.

Are you forgetting it is KNOWN langagues and the only way they could distinguish what it was, especially in contrast the common estatic utterances of that day among the gentiles was to RECOGNIZE it as KNOWN langauges! You cannot recognize estatic utterances as KNOWN language because no one on earth can identify with them. Use common sense!

Have you ever heard the hermeutical rule of first mention. When something is first mentioned in scripture it is usally spelled out clearly or else no one can understand what it is because it has never been mentioned previously. Acts 2:6-11 is the first mention where it is spelled out clearly and therefore Luke is not going to repeat all the details all over again each time as though those Acts 10 and Acts 19 are SOMETHING NEW never happened before. Just common sense!

Again the rule of first mention and that is a very common sense rule found repeatedly in scripture.


A

No one has ever said anything about your "relationship to my savior" but you are intentionally attempting to make this discussion look as though it were a personal attack rather than a debate about tongues according to your view. Please put the martyr complex aside and deal reasonably and rationally instead of emotionally and touchy. If talking about what you believe and experience as tongues is offensive to you then stop starting threads trying to defend YOUR EXPERIENCE and YOUR UNDERSTANDING if no one else can challenge it without you being personally offended or feeling you are being personally attacked!!!!

 

Awaken,
My apologies if this has already been addressed; I just started looking at this thread.

What needs to be addressed: you made two errors in your first two posts in this thread.

1) You address Mark 16, and apparently end up using this as a justification for a "spirit language." Your error is that Mark 16 is translated as "tongues", not "tongue." Seeing as Jesus is confirming an earlier prophecy from the Old Testament, the translation is correct in that it indicates multiple tongues, not just any particular tongue, and therefore cannot be used as a justification for a language not mentioned in scripture.

2) Your second error is in your second post, where you reference the 120 who were speaking in tongues but didn't know what they were each saying. You again stop at this point, leaving the reader to infer that this is further justification for a "spirit language"; when in reality, if one continues to read just a few more verses, one finds that other Jews heard about these 120 speaking "gibberish" and came to see what was going on; and upon hearing the 120, identified the languages the 120 were speaking. One will also notice that of the languages listed in that chapter, "spirit language" or "angel language" are not among them; but rather, men identified them all as "our own tongues, wherein we were born." Therefore, this passage cannot be used as a justification for speaking in a "spirit tongue."

 

Yes, one is an IMPROPER USE that is being CORRECTED and RESTRICTED but PERMITTED within extremely restricted limits while the other is the PRIMARY BIBLICAL DESIGNED USE and the proof is that Paul can QUOTE BIBLE for that USE ONLY!

here is another crux of your error! It is a KNOWN language and those born in that language NEED NO INTERPETER as that is silly! The Holy Spirit needs only to produce from the tongue speaker that KNOWN AUDILBE LANGUAGE! - Period!

The ONLY OTHER Person who needs the spiritual gift of interpretation is one whose language being spoken is not NATIVE to themselves and that is the case when used IN THE CHURCH AMONG BELIEVERS! Period!

here is another error in your thinking! God is not the author of confusion and you are claiming he is. He will not lead tongue speakers in a church to violate His own restrictions for use in the church as spelled out in 1 Cor. 14:1-27! However, you have the Holy Spirit violating every single one of those restrictions in Acts 2 simply because you want to force it into a congregational praise service! Thus the Holy Spirit through Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 is contradicting the leadership of Himself in Acts 2.

There is not one syllyable in this text that demands the tongues had started or were contained in that room - you assume that. All Luke is giving is an order of events that verses 5-11 demand were not contained in that room in regard to dialect speech. Those native born jews need no spirtual gift to understand vocalizations in their own native tongue - that is your pure imagination trying to justify a praise service when it is a WITNESSING activity as directed and described by the same Spirit of God in Isa. 8:28:11-15!

ok, we made some progress here. But if the Gentiles UNDERSTOOD the language then there was no need for the speakers to have interpretation any more than those speakers needed interpretation in Acts 2 as the listeners understood what was being said and TOLD THEM - because it was said in THEIR OWN LANGUAGE - thus needing no spiritual gift of interpretation.

If you understood my intepretation of the Baptism in the Spirit you wouldn't even attempt to make such a connection or argument.

 

Not only is that a complete and false statement but it has nothing in scripture to support it whatsoever EXCEPT jerking 1 cor. 14:2 out of context and refusing to allow verses 3-12 to intepret it!

ALso it is false because the literal actual language of both Isaiah 28:11-2 and 1 Cor. 14:21 explicitly and literally say that it is God speaking to men.

Nobody needs any spiritual gift to undersand English if that is their native tongue and they certainly do not need an interpeter to understand what is said, sung, prayed or preached in English! To claim they need a spiritual gift to interpret a language they know, read and understand is the height of foolishness. They need no more spiritual gift to interpret it than they did hebrews in the Old Testament to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures.

Oh! Does 1 Cor. 14 allow for 120 tongue speakers at once in the congregation? Does 1 Cor. 14 allow for more than three at most in the congregation? Please don't give such a foolish response when it is so obvious that there is a complete contradiction if the tongue speaking in Acts 2 is in the congregation in light of the restrictions in 1 Cor. 14 in the congregation!!!!

You are dishonest with God's Word - period! You dishonestly jerk verse 2 out of its context BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY YOU CAN MAKE IT MEAN WHAT YOU WANT by ignoring verses 3-12.

You are dishonest with God's Word - Period! You dishonestly refuse to admit what Paul says in explicit literally word of word in black and white that is GOD SPEAKING TO MAN in verse 21 and in Isaiah 28:11-12. Dishonesty is the appropriate charge as there is absolutely no excuse!

Follow your own logic then. No one is baptized in the Spirit unless there is a sound of a mighty rushing wind also. No one is baptized in the Spirit unless tongues of fire appear over their heads also. No one is baptized in the Spirit unless they are in Jerusalem and confined in one room also.

What makes tongues the evidence of the baptism in the Spirit any more than evidence of being Jews?

When I introduced the rule of first mention it was in the context of a full description of a particular new item such as tongues. There is an expanded description of it in verse 6-11. In regard to the Baptism in the Spirit I also believe it is what it claims according to its language - an immersion in the presence of the Spirit accompanied by tongues of fire upon the heads as this is comparable to what occurred to previous new houses of God made of non-living materials - they were immersed in the shikinah glory and fire came down from heaven to light the altar (2 Chron. 7:1-3) but no tongues are connected with that event. Tongues are connected with Isaiah 28:11-15 and the JEWISH NATION as a "sign" to turn to Christ or face destruction as a nation.

Provide any scripture that LITERALY states that please! Just one text!
I Corinthians 12:13 has NOTHING to do with baptism in the Spirit but baptism by water into the congregational body under the leadership of the Spirit as spelled out in 1 Cor. 3:5-16 and then summarized again in 1 Cor. 12:13. I would be more than happy to defend that position in another thread!

 

19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.


Here is the adult or mature approach to using tongues in the Church! But no such mature approach exists within charismania. Instead they would rather speak ten thousand times ten thousand words without understanding in the church than five words with understanding because they consider that more spiiritual!

20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Paul was spiritual mature because the Word of God not his feelings or experiences guided his thinking and practice and he wanted to please God according to scripture. In charismania spiritual maturity is rare if not missing entirely.

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.

Spiritual mature Christians submit their experiences, desires and practices within the confines of God's Word. Here is the only biblical based reason the scriptures provide for the existence of tongues and its purpose. Everything else in this chapter has been abusive use and corrected, limited and restricted.

Here Paul tells them that tongues is not speaking to God but God speaking to men. Plain explicit English spelled out in black and white.

Tongues are designed for THIS PEOPLE and their response AS A PEOPLE is they will not hear the Lord SPEAK TO THEM BY THIS MANNER! A remnant, like Paul, like those on Pentecost, like those the churches in Jerusalem and Judea will but NOT AS A PEOPLE.



22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

Whom did he just say in verse 21 that would not believe? Who! he said "THIS PEOPLE" and so tongues are for a sign but not a sign to them that believe. Tongues are not for believers, they are not designed for believers, they are not Biblically purposed for believers and that is precisely why such corrections and restrictions and NARROW LIMITATIONS for their use by believers is spelled out. They are not for the personal private life of believers. They are not designed for their public life they are simply not designed AT ALL for believers and that is precisely why they will cease of themselves when "THIS PEOPLE" does not respond but rejects and the condemnation for that rejection comes upon them in AD 70. That is why they are spoken of in PAST TENSE completed action in Mark 16:20 and in Hebrews 2:3-4.

In contrast prophesying is for them that believe. It is for their church life. It is for their private life and "all" may prophesy not merely "two or three at the most" because prophesying in this sense is merely proclaiming, preaching, teaching God's Word as provided by those in the office of prophets and apostles from which the whole New Testament originated and the whole Old Testament originated. Forthtelling not pre-telling is the meaning of prophesying here.

 

1 ¶ Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. [/QUOTE]

The rule for using all spiritual gifts is charity as described in 13;5-8 and charity never seeketh its own but always seeks whats best for others as true charity is always SELF-DENYING. It is picking up the cross and dying to self!

Spiritual gifts are not selected by God's people but by God's Spirit (14:7-11) BECAUSE God's purpose for gifting "one" different than another is not for SELF but for God's design for that individual within the body (vv. 11-26) to fulfill a need by OTHER MEMBERS and so God has not purposed that any singular member EVER fill every ministry or exercise every gift (vv. 29-30) as that would eliminate their dependency upon EACH OTHER which is the WAY OF LOVE (12:31-14:1). Therefore seek love above all things because love denies SELF instead of promoting SELF. If you want to promote OTHERS instead of SELF in the assembly SEEK TO PROPHESY. At this point Paul introduces the superiority of Prophesy over tongues in a series of contrasts in the next few verses and why prophesy is SUPERIOR to tongues in a church context.

For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

With verse 2 Paul introduces tongues IN CONTRAST with Prophesy IN A CHURCH CONTEXT which later he will state is not the context God designed for the FREE exercise of tongues because IN THE CHURCH it comes with GREAT LIMITATIONS, RESTRICTIONS and SELF-CONTROL guidelines whereas ALL may prophesy.

Second, verse 2 introduces tongues WITHOUT INTERPRETERS. Interpretation is not introduce until verse 5. And it is verse 5 with the introduction of interpretation IN THE CHURCH that he begins in verses 6-12 to show why it is necessary to have interpretation. Hence, tongues is being considered in this text as IN THE CHURCH and WITHOUT INTERPRETERS and as such "he that speaketh in an unknown tonge speaketh NOT TO MEN, but to God" and so it is mysterious to men.

Later according to God's Biblical design where tongues are used FREELY tongues is how God SPEAKS TO MEN (v. 21). However, in the church context without an interpreter tongues has NO VALUE TO MEN simply because NO MAN in that context understands it and cannot understand it without an interpreter. When an interpreter is provided then it edifies men witin the church but not until.

3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

In direct contrast, prophesy IN THE CHURCH context is speaking to men because it does not require an interpreter to understand what is being said. Therefore immeidate edification, exhortation and comfort are gained by all who hear it as they speak it in words all know! Hence, in the Church prophesying is SUPERIOR and should be emphasized.




4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Now by comparison again with prophesing IN THE CHURCH tongues do not edify others and so fails, falls short of exercising gifts out of LOVE as love seeks the benefit of OTHERS over self but tongues in the church without interpretation only builds up self at the expense of others and that kind of self-edification is condemned. Neither does it build up self in a positive manner as that is impossible without understanding accompanying it for the speaker (vv. 16-17) and therefore Paul simply will not speak in tongues AT ALL without seeking and obtaining understanding for himself as well as for any listeners. Tongues were never designed for SELF-edification but for the MISSION FIELD unto "THIS PEOPLE" and that is why IN THE CHURCH it is absolutely forbidden to speak openly and publicly in tongues without interpretation provided and even then no more than three. If a person still persists and wants to exercise that gift in the church he is to do it SILENTLY.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.


If they all could speak with tongues he would not have to make any such wish but they can't as tongues is not given to all (12:29-30).

Paul continues with the contrast between the SUPERIOR gift of prophesying versus tongues IN THE CHURCH without an interpreter. However, in verse 5 he introduces the first exception to his rule of the complete superiority of prophesying over tongues in the church - "EXCEPT HE INTERPRET." This proves that in verses 2-4 tongues has been considered WITHOUT INTERPRETATION and thus without NO MAN UNDERSTANDING IT. Now, he introduces for the FIRST TIME how it can be spoken to men or with understanding so it does speak to men and does edify 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?

Having introduced the exception clause for the first time in verse 5 how tongues may benefit the church, may be used according to love, may build up rather than cause confusion, he now proceeds to reason with the corinthians why it is necessary for the use of tongues in the church to ALWAYS include understanding because without it benefits NO MEMBER at all.

Notice also that tongues can be spoken TO MEN in the following variety of ways - "revelation....knowledge.....prophesying.....doctrine" in addition to praying and singing as Paul is claiming that tongues has no benefit unless it is used according to these functions. Hence, to claim that tongues is a praise gift is false. Or that tongues is praying is false. It can be used for such but it is not restricted to such but can be used ANY WAY you use your own dialect!


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.

His point is simple. Uninterpreted DIALECTS mean nothing to any man including the speaker if they are not understood and that is precisely why Paul says that personally he will never speak in tongues IN A WORSHIP CONTEXT where interpretation is not provided for himself and others. In a JEWISH MISSIONARY context God is speaking to men through his lips (v. 21) and that is exactly what we see in every use in the book of Acts.

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.

Tongues refers to the "many kinds of voices in the world" or known dialects and that is why it is found in the plural because there are plural dialects. On the Mission field God selects the langauages when HE SPEAKS TO MEN through their lips and tongues. In WORSHIP foreign languages are worthless to all without interpretation as they merely speak into the air and speak like a barbarian. Notice both the speaker and the listener are barbarian. The rule is seek edification of the Church and because that is the rule to seek IN WORSHIP SERIVCE Paul refuses to personally exercise that gift without understanding given himself and all listeners (vv. 13-17) and personally has no use for exercising tongues in the church (v. 19) at all for several reasons. First, it is not the place God designed for tongues (vv. 20-21). Second, it servers no MISSIONARY PURPOSE for the unlearned Gentile lost who may enter the service. Third its use in worship is severely restricted so that none may speak in tongues without interpretation and at the most with interpretation three and then one at a time. This is why it would cease of itsself because when God's purpose for it was accomplished and as more of the written prophetic Word was provided it served no purpose in worship.

 

Good! You are at least admitting there are two different purposes for tongues with two different objects (1) God; (2) this people.

Now, follow me. From verse 1 to verse 4 there is a contrast between prophesying and tongues IN THE CHURCH in regard to the principle of edifying the church - Agreed?

Now, look at verse 5. Verse five is the first time that the exception clause is brought into this discussion. "except he interpret". Previous to verse five tongues is being considered IN THE CHURCH in contrast to prophesying WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. Agreed?

Think, if the subject is IN THE CHURCH and WITHOUT INTERPRETATION for verses 2-5 then who in the church understands anything uttered in that foreign dialect? Can you name ANYONE in the church including the speaker who understands a single syllable spoken? How do the members perceive what is spoken but "mysteries" or things not revealed to them? Who alone IN the Church understands it? Is not the only One that understands it is God? So who is it that those speaking in tongues IN THE CHURCH without an interpreter speak to? Not men because no man understands it. They speak only to God as God alone understands what they are saying.

Also, you need to grab verse 6. Verse 6 claims that tongues can be used several ways when it is accompanied with the exception clause in verse 5. Speaking Vietneese can provide exhortation, prophesying, revelation, knowledge, singing, praying, whatever you can do in English can be done in another langauge. It is not limited to praying! Tongues IS not a prayer or praise tongue but tongues can be used for anything English can be used for when the EXCEPTION CLAUSE accompanies it.

Now, verse 5. introduces the subject matter in verses 6-11 which Paul draws a conclusion in verses 12-19. We will skip that for now.

 

The need for intepretation, which is a spiritual gift as you claim occurs ONLY FOR ONE PURPOSE - its use in the church. Outside of the Church the other purpsoe is MISSIONARY SIGN TO ISRAEL and there is no need for any gift of interpretation because God is speaking directly to men in their own language and they interpet it.

 

You have got to be joking? Paul explicitly commands no more then three VOCALIZATIONS within the assembly and you have 120 in Acts 2:4-11. Paul explicitly commands that in the assembly no more than ONE at a time and you have 120 in Acts 2:4-11. Hence, Acts 2 is for the MISSIONARY PURPOSE of tongues which has no such limitations or restrictions at all. That is precisely how Paul used this gift MORE THAN THEM ALL combinded together.

Even you cannot deny that Acts 2:4-11 perfectly fits the purpose described in Isa. 28:11-15 and 1 Cor. 14:20-22 which you admit is another purpose for tongues.

 

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?

This is the only example of praying in tongues and even it is hypothetical.
All other speaking in tongues was preaching or prophesying.

1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--This is not prayer; it is edification, preaching, prophesying. It has nothing to do with prayer. The chapter is not speaking of prayer at all. It is a contrast between two gifts (both of which have ceased), prophecy and tongues. Paul states that prophecy is the better gift because it edifies. Tongues is the lesser gift because there is no understanding with it. Neither one of them is associated with prayer. They never are, or rarely.

 

I think my division is better. There is the wrong way, the restricted way and the missionary way.

 

You are making progress. You see some of the purposes of tongues.
Remember one cannot use Acts 2 as a proof text. It is a past historical event never to happen again. The speaking of tongues was before the church, before the salvation of anyone there. The others that followed it in chapters ten and nineteen had the same purpose. Then we here about speaking in tongues by many at one time forbidden after that. That is the very reason one cannot build doctrine on a historical book like Acts.

There is only one kind of tongues. But tongues did have different purposes.
1. Revelatory--because the revelation of God wasn't finished.
2. Apostolic--a sign of the Apostles.
3. A sign to the Jews; unbelievers.
4. Used by Paul, a missionary, to reach others of different nations or languages.

I do not find anywhere that it is used for private prayer; the occasional public prayer, yes; but not private.