Health Benefits of Tongues

[BobRyan]

We DO know that the scriptures clearly tell us that God ceased giving ANY additional revelations since Apostle John died

:laugh:
Is that a quote from 3 Y1 chapter 0 ?? :type:


You need to prefix it with the papal signet and seal first -


So "until then" ...well... we will just have to go with Ephesians 4:11-15

And of course --
1 Cor 14
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

 

[Yeshua1]

:laugh:
Is that a quote from 3 Y1 chapter 0 ?? :type:


You need to prefix it with the papal signet and seal first -


So "until then" ...well... we will just have to go with Ephesians 4:11-15

And of course --
1 Cor 14
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.

Those scriptures refer to only the transitioanl period in the early church though, and the canon is now complete, and the Lord has spoken to NNE since John passed away as regarding any additioanl revelations and truths!

I know that you have to have prophecy continued, for that will cover the false ones from your false prophetess given as new revelation, but t he bible cannot support that!

 

[JonC]

Except that the expressed and given purpose for tongues ceased to exist though, as we have no need to validate the Apostolic teachings concerning jesus any more, nor need any additional revelations from God concerning faith and teachings, which those holding to modern day Apostles/prophets say is true!

I understand that this was a sign to the unbeliever (as Paul describes to the church in Corinth). I understand the insistence that it no longer serves its purpose (which you reason has ended). But the authority of the apostles were inherent in their apostleship - they did not need to be validated within the laity of the churches. It did not take, for example, Bill the layman speaking in tongues to affirm the words of Paul (Paul insists authority as an apostle - not a sign given through another church member). While I have never witnessed tongues (or any sign gift for that matter) conducted biblically, and I doubt their relevance, I can’t help but see that you are standing on very shallow and shaky ground. Sign gifts affirmed the message by affirming the messenger. The healings of Peter, John and Stephen were signs pointing to the validity of the message to which they were bearing witness. Your argument simply does not add up (unless you are saying that there are countless divine revelations spoken through laypeople in the early church of which we are unaware). Again, we probably come to the same conclusions regarding the exercise of tongues today…we probably hold the same opinion on these gifts…but you hold your opinion as if it were Scripture.

 

[JonC]

irrefutably correct. No text says "these are SIGN gifts and they will cease in about 50 years or whenever John dies"

In fact in my opposition to the modern day false manifestations - I never argue it based on the speculation that God has put a stop to spiritual gifts.

Such a position would "also" be wrong - so can't go there.

in Christ,

Bob

:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand that this was a sign to the unbeliever (as Paul describes to the church in Corinth). I understand the insistence that it no longer serves its purpose (which you reason has ended). But the authority of the apostles were inherent in their apostleship - they did not need to be validated within the laity of the churches. It did not take, for example, Bill the layman speaking in tongues to affirm the words of Paul (Paul insists authority as an apostle - not a sign given through another church member). While I have never witnessed tongues (or any sign gift for that matter) conducted biblically, and I doubt their relevance, I can’t help but see that you are standing on very shallow and shaky ground. Sign gifts affirmed the message by affirming the messenger. The healings of Peter, John and Stephen were signs pointing to the validity of the message to which they were bearing witness. Your argument simply does not add up (unless you are saying that there are countless divine revelations spoken through laypeople in the early church of which we are unaware). Again, we probably come to the same conclusions regarding the exercise of tongues today…we probably hold the same opinion on these gifts…but you hold your opinion as if it were Scripture.

saying that those with the gift to prophesy in the early Church were given to validate that the Apstolic teachings were all inspired and correct, and also were used to gibe guidance from time to time..

Can God still speal thru someone to give direction or guidance, MAYBE in rare times, but not as a prophetic office or as an Apostle uttering inspired words of truth and doctrines, as SDA and WoF both assert!

 

[Yeshua1]

:thumbs::thumbs:

Again, the very purpose of the sign gifts have ceased, as God already has confirmed the teaching of ther Apostles, and there were NO aditional revelations since John passed!

 

[JonC]

Again, the very purpose of the sign gifts have ceased, as God already has confirmed the teaching of the apostles!

I understand your reasoning, but can you back up the claim with Scripture or is it true simply because we conclude it to be true?

 

[Rolfe]

Private prayer in tongues is not for human ears, and it is not a known language. It isn't supposed to be. It is only known by the Holy Spirit, because we do not know what to pray for.

Just discovered this thread.

I presume that you have Scriptural support for your contention as quoted above? I have heard this stated many times, but have yet to see any Biblical support for it.

 

[JonC]

Just discovered this thread.

I presume that you have Scriptural support for your contention as quoted above? I have heard this stated many times, but have yet to see any Biblical support for it.

Some take 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 to say precisely that (for example, if you look at the passage as interpreted by “The Message,” essentially you get the “prayer language). Using the ESV, those who speak in a tongue speak not to men but to God, speaking mysteries in the Spirit. The one speaking in tongues in this passage does so not to affirm the teachings of the apostle, but to build up himself (not speaking here of tongues presented in a congregation, but in general). So I see where those who advocate a continuation of tongues – particularly tongues in private prayer – can find support.

 

[Revmitchell]

Some take 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 to say precisely that ...... So I see where those who advocate a continuation of tongues – particularly tongues in private prayer – can find support.

And yet the context of those passages is prophesying rather than speaking in tongues so that the church may be edified.

 

[JonC]

And yet the context of those passages is prophesying rather than speaking in tongues so that the church may be edified.

I agree. Paul specifically tells us that prophesying is the greater of the two gifts. Once you get past verse 5 this is clear as he speaks of edifying the church. Corporate edification is not, however, the point made in the first few verses. I don't think we can simply dismiss (and I don't believe that you are) Paul's words regarding tongues apart from congregational edification. Paul's instruction takes as foundation elements ideas that some here deny (speaking mysteries in the Spirit to God and not men; tongues used privately to build up the individual speaking the tongue and not for others).

My complaint is that too often someone will say that tongues was a sign affirming the apostles....even if this is so, it is obviously not the only context where tongues has been used in Scripture. Some will say that tongues are not a gift for today (a statement that I believe to be true) but cannot provide evidence for that position. While I agree with the majority here that tongues have ceased, I simply find it a bit obscene to elevate that conclusion to the status of the Bible without being able to provide Scripture to back up that position. It is good to discuss, but when we get to the point that we simply repeat our own conclusions as evidence and without being able to provide biblical proof then we have gone a bit too far.

 

[Revmitchell]

Corporate edification is not, however, the point made in the first few verses.

Yes it is.....


1Co 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.


Everything after that is nothing but clarification or expansion of that underlined point. We need not forget all of chapter 14 is in the context set in chapter 13. The context can be seen when looking at the entirety of the chapters. Corporate edification in the church. In vs. 22 Paul reiterates this when he said that tongues are for those who do not believe.

We also do not want to miss the use of language employed by Paul. Some of it is hyperbole used to make a point about corporate edification. This is never more clear than in the first three verses of chapter 13.

 

[JonC]

Yes it is.....

13.

Paul's use of tongues in the first part of the passage is, I agree, to focus on his point of prophecy to edify the church. That does not mean, however, the example of individual private tongues (apart from edifying the church and purposed for building up of the individual) was a fictitious illustration to Paul's mind. The fact that Paul's emphasis was on edification does not negate the fact that he used tongues in another sense for his argument.

 

[Revmitchell]

Paul's use of tongues in the first part of the passage is, I agree, to focus on his point of prophecy to edify the church. That does not mean, however, the example of individual private tongues (apart from edifying the church and purposed for building up of the individual) was a fictitious illustration to Paul's mind. The fact that Paul's emphasis was on edification does not negate the fact that he used tongues in another sense for his argument.

He did not use tongues in another sense. Let's take a look at chapter 13:

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.


There can be no case made that we have some ability to speak the language of angels. Paul here was using hyperbole. The point is that unless you speak in a manner that is understood by others who are around you then it serves no purpose corporately to do so.

Same in chapter 14:

1Co 14:2 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.


Paul was in fact being redundant. Notice however, that the spirit being spoken in is a small "s". That means it is in our spirit. There is no indication that this was a leading of the Spirit of God.

Also, Greek was a common language as English is today. Most everyone spoke Greek but most every one also had their home language. Since there were many languages in a single church and most people preferred to speak that when they testified in a corporate service they often would do so in their own language. The problem arises out of this that not everyone in the service could understand what was being said. Paul was correcting this and encouraging them to either speak what is common or have someone interpret in a common language so that all who was in attendance could understand. Paul was saying in those first couple of verses that when you speak in your home language and no one understands you then what you say is between you and God alone and that does not serve the congregation.


There is no indication that the tongues being employed in this was unknown to the entire world. The short analysis of these chapters is love each other enough to consider others, speak what is common and save your home language for evangelism.

 

[Revmitchell]

This forced jiber jaber that the church often engages in is heresy and an abomination. Even the tongues used at pentecost lead those to hear the gospel in their own language.

 

[JonC]

He did not use tongues in another sense. Let's take a look at chapter 13:

1Co 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.


There can be no case made that we have some ability to speak the language of angels. Paul here was using hyperbole. The point is that unless you speak in a manner that is understood by others who are around you then it serves no purpose corporately to do so.

Same in chapter 14:

1Co 14:2 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.

.

Just for my own clarification:

Are you saying that Paul did not mean that it was a legitimate use of tongues (between God and the speaker/busing up the speaker), or are you simply saying that that was not the main point of Paul's words as a whole?

 

[Revmitchell]

Just for my own clarification:

Are you saying that Paul did not mean that it was a legitimate use of tongues (between God and the speaker/busing up the speaker), or are you simply saying that that was not the main point of Paul's words as a whole?

I am saying it is not even in view in this passage. In either chapter 13 or 14.

 

[JonC]

I am saying it is not even in view in this passage. In either chapter 13 or 14.

Then why is it there? (verses one through five)

 

[Revmitchell]

Then why is it there? (verses one through five)

I just explained 1-5 in post 54. 1-5 cannot be explained apart from the context of the whole. 1-5 does not say anything at all about a private language. It talks about a language others do not understand in a corporate worship service.


Look God would never overcome someone to speak some private prayer language in a corporate service and then have Paul come correct its use.


However, I think there is an assumption on your part, about what those verses are saying, that I am not even close to making. Not sure what it is.

 

[JonC]

I just explained 1-5 in post 54. 1-5 cannot be explained apart from the context of the whole. 1-5 does not say anything at all about a private language. It talks about a language others do not understand in a corporate worship service.


Look God would never overcome someone to speak some private prayer language in a corporate service and then have Paul come correct its use.


However, I think there is an assumption on your part, about what those verses are saying, that I am not even close to making. Not sure what it is.

I agree with you about the context. But I am taking it that you disagree that the example Paul uses is a legitimate use of tongues (even if no longer applicable). We were not discussing which was the greater gift, but tongues outside of the context of edification.