For those who speak in tongues...

Hi Link, John MacCarther wrote a in depth study on the tongues and has a good size section on the "unknown" issue. Actually, he believes there is one spot at the end of 1 Cor. 14 that the KJV should have added "unknown" and didn't. Beyond that, if you read 1 Cor. 14 as I suggested and as JM has taught, it does make sense.

It helps bring together the whole chapter and fixes issues like "praying for the gift interpretation" which we should know we can't do from 1 Cor. 12 where it says the Holy Spirit gives the gifts as He wills. Anyway, maybe I will have time to comment more later.

DHK, on 1 Cor. 12:31 the RSV gives an alternate in terpretation which says something like: You are seeking after the best (showy) gifts but I will show you a better way. I like this better because we know in Corinth they were seeking to be "greater" then eachother. They wanted the "Out Front" gifts, the ones that gave them recognition. That is why Paul goes into detail about the background gifts (body parts) being just as important as the gifts where the person is seen more. I believe the ranking of the gifts is not a list of importance but just a list, maybe of how they were give or something like that. I don't think it matters though. I believe 1 Cor 12 takes too much time saying there is no "better" gifts to go ahead and list them from most to least importaant. I think as a whole that interpretation is more consistant then what you mentioned. What are your thoughts on that?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Yes, that is what I believe. They were a carnal church. They were seeking after the more "showy" gifts, of which tongues was no doubt the most "showy." If you had the gift of tongues it gave one the appearance that they were spiritual, and others were not. The same is true today. But Paul says to seek after the better gifts which he has listed in order of importance. After apostles, those would be prophecy and teaching, the two gifts that edify the church the most.

Either way: I show you a better way--love.
Love is contrasted to their use of tongues.
With their abuse of tongues it brought pride.
The result of true love was humility: the opposite of the result of tongues.
DHK

 

DKH,
Since order of listing is what is important,
Does nthat mean that Faith and Hope are better than love since love is mentioned last in the list?
I know Paul said that love was the greatest but maybe that changed after the early Apostles died!!!

 

OK DHK one more time.............

1Co 14:35 And if they will LEARN any thing......

Leads me to believe they were UNLEARNED. Or are you saying all women are stupid and know nothing of Gods Word and so they should'nt have the right to speak? I know the God I serve is no respector of persons. I believe a woman can speak in tongues and even preach in a church behind a pulpit, but however I believe that a woman shouldn't oversee and run a church....that would be for a male pastor to do. I also believe that when Paul was answering the letter to the church of Corinth.... Paul also said this right after the scripure you like to throw up at women,

1Co 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
1Co 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
1Co 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Where in the OT comandments does it say women are to not to speak in church? Is that Paul's law, Mosaic law, God's ...whos law? I thought we were no longer under the law?

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

BTW, I know the Baptist doctrin. Also I know your veiws about this subject. I just have questions when other scripture don't line up. Thats all. Not trying to cause no trouble.

 

DHK wrote,
"but rather that you prophecy, not speak in tongues. The verse is a rebuke to tongues, and an encouragement to prophecy"

This is some serious eisegesis. You are reading your own opinions into scripture. The passage you are quoting does not support the ideas you are reading into it.

Let us look up the verse you quote above. I Corinthians 14:5 starts,

“I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied…”

How in the world can you argue that ‘I would that ye all spake with tongues” is rebuking people for speaking in tongues? That makes no sense whatsoever. Paul is clearly saying he wishes they all spoke in tongues, not saying he wished they wouldn’t. He wants them to speak in tongues, and he would even rather they prophesy. So tongues is a good gift, and prophecy is even better.

You seem to think of speaking in tongues as a ‘bad’ gift of the Spirit. According to Jesus, “If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:11.) We should not consider the gifts of God to be immature or bad.

**Yes, that is what I believe. They were a carnal church. They were seeking after the more "showy" gifts, of which tongues was no doubt the most "showy." If you had the gift of tongues it gave one the appearance that they were spiritual, and others were not. The same is true today.**

The problem with your interpretation is that it is not based on scripture. You are reading your own ideas into scripture. Where does Paul indicate that tongues was more ‘showy’ than prophecy?

And your conclusion here makes little sense. You don’t even believe modern gifts of tongues are genuine, but yet you treat them as if they are the same as what the Corinthians had. I think you are reading your disdain for modern Pentecostal practice back into scripture.

Nowhere does Paul say that the Corinthians were trying to be showy. He does indicate that what they were doing was childish. Maybe they thought that speaking in tongues was spiritual, since it was a spiritual gift. Maybe they did not stop to consider whether blurting something out in tongues without interpretation was edifying to the assembly or not. We know the Corinthians were a carnal church, but the passage does not state or indicate that thy did their speaking in tongues just to get attention. Paul says that the one in tongues builds himself up. He does not say that one who speaks in tongues draws attention to himself.

** But Paul says to seek after the better gifts which he has listed in order of importance. After apostles, those would be prophecy and teaching, the two gifts that edify the church the most.**

But that does make gifts lower on the scale bad gifts. They just aren’t as edifying as prophecy and teaching. That does not mean these gifts are carnal. They are gifts of God after all. Even the parts of the body that seem least important are important.

And do you seek after the gift of prophecy? Do you encourage its exercise in the church.

**You have no Scriptural support for this. When is says women, it means women: "all the women of the world: red and yellow, black and white..."**

DHK,

You apply a double standard to interpreting scripture. In another thread, I pointed out that Jesus said that whoever spoke a word against the Holy Ghost, it would not be forgiven him in this age, nor in the world to come. You interpreted ‘whoever’ to refer specifically to people who saw Jesus’ miracles before their very eyes, no matter what the passage said.

But here, you insist that women means woman. You are inconsistent in your interpretation. If you think ‘Forbid not to speak in tongues’ refers only to people in the first century, then why wouldn’t ‘women’ mean ‘women who lived in the first century and heard the letter when it was first read to the church in Corinth.’

Isn’t there a danger to haphazardly redefining and re-interpretting the meaning of words to fit with a pre-conceived ideology?

 

Briguy

From what I understand, there is nothing about the language of the Greek of I Corinthians 14 that demands ‘unknown’. It is something added to interpret the text correct me if I am mistaken.

quote
***It helps bring together the whole chapter and fixes issues like "praying for the gift interpretation" which we should know we can't do from 1 Cor. 12 where it says the Holy Spirit gives the gifts as He wills. Anyway, maybe I will have time to comment more later.***

Think about what you are saying. You are saying if the Spirit gives gifts according to his will, then it does not good to pray for them. Why don’t you apply this principle to all prayer.

When does God ever do anything contrary to His will. Why should we ever pray for loved ones to get saved, we might reason. If He wants them saved, He will save them. Why should we pray for our daily bread? If God wants to feed us, He will feed us. Why should we pray for anything?

The Bible tells us to pray for things, even for things that we already know are God’s will. And if we don’t pray for something, sometimes we don’t get it. James said, “Ye have not because ye ask not….”

OFTEN TIMES IT IS THE SPIRIT’S WILL TO GIVE SOMETHING TO US IF WE WILL PRAY FOR IT.

What is the point for Paul to instruct us to desire spiritual gifts, especially that we may prophesy if we are not to pray for them? If it is not the Spirit’s will for someone to prophesy, according to your interpretation here, then wouldn’t it be a cruel thing for the Bible to instruct us to covet earnestly this gift? Does God instruct us to earnestly desire something, and then never receive it, even if we pray for it?

The Bible says delight yourself in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart.

If God the Bible commands us to desire something, does not that imply that it is God’s will for us to have that which He commands us to desire? John says whatever things we ask according to His will, we know that we have them. The Bible commands us to desire spiritual gifts. Can’t we ask in faith, believing God to give them?

Yes, God gives the gifts according to His will. But we also know that it is the Father’s will to answer prayers made in faith.

Matthew 21:22
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Consider this passage from Hebrews 2:
3. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;
4. God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Who are ‘them that heard him’ in verse 3? Wouldn’t you agree that that includes the apostles?

Notice that God did signs and wonders according to His own will. By your argument, if these things occurred by God’s will, then the apostles would not have had to pray for them to be done. But what does Acts say?

Acts 4 shows us that he apostles prayed for signs and wonders.

Acts 4:
29. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
30. By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

Notice that the apostles prayed for signs and wonders, and God answered. It was God’s will to do them. But He did them in response to prayer. There is no contradiction.

 

Lines of verbal communication must have a sender and a receiver, i.e. a speaker and a hearer.

The miraculous part of the "glossa" in the Book of Acts was the fact that regardless of the native tongue of the hearer, each HEARD the Word in his/her native tongue--even though the speaker was speaking in a language unknown to the hearer.

The present day "ecstatic utterings" do not represent that which is presented in scripture.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Bro James

The most natural reading of the Acts 2 passage is that the people heard the saints speaking in their languages because the saints were doing so.

And in I Corinthians 14, people were speaking in real tongues, but others could not hear without interpretation. Acts 2 is not the only passage on the subject.

 

"Faith cometh by HEARING, HEARING by the Word of God."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Link, yes the word "unknown" was added by the KJV translators to make the text more clear. They were probably worried that people would read the text just the way you are. There is no such thing as an "unknown" language. If it is a real language it is known to someone, somewhere. That is why we can say that "unknown language" = gibberish.

1 Cor 12: KJV
11] But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

1 Cor. 12 NASB
11But one and the same Spirit works all these things, (V)distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Rom 12
[6] Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
[7] Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
[8] Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Hebrews 2
4] God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?


The point on asking for a spiritual gift is that the Holy Spirit is doing the deciding. Can we change the will of God by asking?? You seem to think so. If God knows all he knows exactly who should have what gift. He then gives the needed gift to the person who He wants to have the gift, not to any one that asks for that gift. It is God's call, what right do we have to ask for a gift. Now here is the more important point. The gifts are given upon the believers salvation. As the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit the gift or gifts the person gets are given at that moment. There is no asking later as the Holy Spirit comes to us in His completeness. That is the whole point of what Paul is saying when he says you are desiring spiritual gifts. He is saying you are spending time desiring spiritual gifts when you should be seeking to edify the "body" by building up others. Paul is not saying it is Ok to desire spiritual gifts but build up the body too. The Corinthians were being selfish and were seeking after pride (being known to all). Paul says to them to start building eachother up and stop seeking after the "spiritual" gifts. Most of the Corinthian people were speaking in Tongues when they did not have the gift and that is why Paul is driving home the edifying of the body and why we can't use gifts to self-edify. Yes, Paul said not to forbid the real gift and that he was glad he had the real gift but that building eachother up was what is important. Paul did not want to stop the sign of tongues being done as it was a warning to the Jews but he put strict guidelines on Tongues because they were being so badly abused. Does that at least make some sense? Even if you disagree.?

In Christ,
Brian

 

Great logic! That is the same as saying:
"And if your grade ten child will "read" literature; leads me to believe that she was ILLITERATE!" That's a good one. Was she illiterate in grade nine?

No one said anything about stupidity. But God said that a woman does not have the right to speak in the church. 1Cor.14:34,35 is very clear. It is not talking of unlearned women; it is talking of all women. If you say it is speaking of unlearned women who are you to say who is unlearned and who is not? Who is going to be the judge. Maybe only those who have a brain equivalent to Einstein's is learned. Maybe only those who have recognized Ph.d's are learned. Now you have to set a standard as to who is learned and who is not. You are right--God is no respecter of persons; so why are you? Why are you implying that you are better than others?

Then why do you say that he is. If he is no respector of persons there is no difference between "learned" and "unlearned" in his sight.

Then, either you haven't read all the Scriptures on this subject, or refuse to believe them--probably the latter.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Titus 2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

The Sciptures are clear. Be subject to your husbands. You are not to have authority over a man. That means that tongues, prophecy, and word of knowledge, etc. are out for women, as is preaching, and so on. That is the reason a women can't be a pastor in a church. It is a place or authority. She must keep her silence and allow the pastor to do the teaching. She is to remain in submission to her husband, and ask her husband at home. This is what the Bible says. Read the above verses.

What Scripture would you like? I can still give you more than that which I have posted above. Do you still need more?

These Scriptures are concluding the entire fourteenth chapter. They have nothing to do with the specific issue of women speaking in church. Paul has gone onto a different subject. That is obvious to see.

Are you going to deny the Word of God. Paul said: "as also saith the law." Your argument there is with Paul, who wrote this portion of the inspired Word of God. It is inspired--God-breathed, and part of our Scriptures. Don't you believe the Bible? Why question it or cast doubt on it then? It is in there, so it is true? The question remains why is it in there, and there is a legitimate answer for it. Marriage is in the Old Testament also. We didn't dispense with that institution just because it is in the Old Testament.
Paul's use of "the law" is very general, referring to the Books of Moses, or maybe even the entire Old Testament. Either way the reference goes right back to Genesis 3:16

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Yes, we are one in Christ; just as we are all sinners. We are equals in that sense. But we do not all have the same functions.
DHK

 

<-- pause for station break -->

I just wanted to mention something really quick in this thread. It's this type of thread that brought me to register with this forum.

Although I have been a Christian for a long time, I have never really study the Bible, so I am a new Christian when it comes to really studying the Word of God, so I don't know things quote by quote like you guys/gals, but I have learned a lot by reading this thread.

It gives me a new way to help supplement my studies. Each person brings up good points, and I take my Bible and read it to decide which is right in my mind.

I wanted to Thank you all for doing this. It takes time to discuss things online, so I wanted to let you all know that this has helped me better understand Speaking in Tongues.

Jamie

<-- Resume Regular Scheduled Program -->

 

For those who understand that the gifts are for today, you may have not seen the following. The last verse of 1 Cor. 12, which is verse 31, is often misinterpreted. R.C.H. Lenski gives a very understandable explanation of this verse.

Basically, what he communicates is that love is not a new and different way, or different from the gifts. Love is the way to do the gifts.


This is an excerpt:

First Epistle to the Corinthians
Copyright 1937
R.C.H. Lenski
Augsburg Publishing House

Commentary on 1 Corinthians 12:31

The first point is the type of the gift desired; we are to admire, value, and seek the higher types. A second point must be taken into consideration when Paul is speaking of the acquirement and the use of any gift. This is the motive for having and for employing the gift, namely the motive of love. In this regard the Corinthians are gravely deficient as we have already seen in other connections in earlier chapters. Just what this motive of Christian love is Paul intends to tell the Corinthians at some length. He introduces this part of his instruction by saying:
And besides I point out to you an exceedingly excellent way, namely for this zealous striving to which I urge you.
Blass and others would change the reading because the wording is somewhat unusual. Although the phrase ( kaq uperbolhn ) modifies a noun, it is quite plain. Paul tells the Corinthians to seek the superior gifts and adds (eti ) that he will now show them a superior way for seeking them. The emphatic adjective: the "greater" gifts is thus balanced by the emphatic phrase: a way "in excess," on that exceeds, i.e., in excellence for its purpose. The sense is, however, not that this exceeding excellent way is to be sought in place of the gifts, as a substitute for them. The idea expressed is not that "love" is more excellent than gifts. This introduces a false contrast and would call for an adversative connective, namely (de ) or (alla ) in place of Paul's (kai ) and (eti ). Nor does Paul elaborate the thesis that love is preferable to gifts. In 1 Cor. 14:1 he urges us to seek both. Love is to be the all-dominating motive in seeking and in using spiritual gifts.

From: http://www.greekbible.com
1 Cor. 12:31
zhloutedetacarismatatameizona.kaietikaquperbolhnodonumindeiknumi.

 

Briguy

Thanks for the response,

***The point on asking for a spiritual gift is that the Holy Spirit is doing the deciding. Can we change the will of God by asking?? You seem to think so. If God knows all he knows exactly who should have what gift. He then gives the needed gift to the person who He wants to have the gift, not to any one that asks for that gift.***

The question you are asking applies to all prayer. Can we change the will of God? If God wants Aunt Susie May to die, why should we pray for her? If God wants me to get a new job, won’t He give it to me without my praying for it? If God wants me to have a spiritual gift, won’t he give it to me without my praying for it?

Jesus told His disciples to pray a certain way, and then told them that the Father knew of what things they had need of before they asked. So apparently, this kind of reasoning is not supposed to keep us from praying.

And thinking that you shouldn’t pray for something because you can’t ‘change’ the will of God hinders prayers in faith. Jesus gave his disciples many teachings that if they asked in faith they would receive. James told his readers they had not because they asked not. They did not have because they did not pray.

So, whether we can ‘change the will of God’ by praying, or if God has pre-ordained every little thing that we will ask for in faith before the beginning of time, either way, we know that it is God’s will to answer prayers made in faith in Jesus name—at least under certain circumstances (e.g. not asking to consume upon one’s lust, etc.)

** It is God's call, what right do we have to ask for a gift. Now here is the more important point. The gifts are given upon the believers salvation. As the believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit the gift or gifts the person gets are given at that moment.**

That may be true of some gifts, but it is not true of all. Timothy received a gift by prophecy through the laying on of hands of the elders. He received a gift at the laying on of Paul’s hands. Since Timothy was apparently a believer before he met Paul, he got some gifts AFTER he got saved.

I Corinthians exhorts believers to earnestly desire spiritual gifts. I Cor. 14:12 tells the one who speaks in a tongue to pray that he might interpret—a clear example of praying for a manifestation of a gift of the Spirit.

Christ’s teachings on prayer apply to gifts of the Spirit, too.

Btw, I would appreciate a reply on the fact that signs and wonders were done according to God’s will (Heb. 2), and yet many of them occurred after the apostles prayed for them (Acts 4.)

** There is no asking later as the Holy Spirit comes to us in His completeness.**

Can you show me this idea in scripture? If the Holy Spirit comes to us in His completeness, does that mean everyone receives every gift? If we can receive the Holy Spirit ‘in His completeness’ and not get all His gifts at first, then why couldn’t we get more gifts later? I gave you an example of someone who received a gift after his salvation, above (Timothy.)

* That is the whole point of what Paul is saying when he says you are desiring spiritual gifts. He is saying you are spending time desiring spiritual gifts when you should be seeking to edify the "body" by building up others. Paul is not saying it is Ok to desire spiritual gifts but build up the body too.**


I really don’t see where you get this from the passage. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts to build up the body. In fact, Paul directly commands the Corinthians to desire spiritual gifts.

** The Corinthians were being selfish and were seeking after pride (being known to all). Paul says to them to start building eachother up and stop seeking after the "spiritual" gifts. Most of the Corinthian people were speaking in Tongues when they did not have the gift and that is why Paul is driving home the edifying of the body and why we can't use gifts to self-edify.**

Could you show me what verses you get these ideas from in the passage? I don’t see them at all. First of all, Paul does not rebuke the Corinthians for pride in this passage in their use of tongues, but for childishness.

And if the tongues were fake, then how could they have edified (built up) themselves by doing so? ‘Edify’ is a good thing. It does not mean draw attention to oneself. It means to build oneself up. Look at the end of Jude for a command to build yourselves up in the Lord praying in the Holy Ghost.

** Yes, Paul said not to forbid the real gift and that he was glad he had the real gift but that building eachother up was what is important.**

Paul calls the gift ‘tongues’ throughout. There is not reason to arbitrarily say in one verse it is a real gift and in another it is fake. In fact, reading the gift as fake in some and real in others makes no sense in the context of the passage. Why would Paul correct them for not translating tongues if their tongues were fake in the first place?

** Paul did not want to stop the sign of tongues being done as it was a warning to the Jews but he put strict guidelines on Tongues because they were being so badly abused. Does that at least make some sense? Even if you disagree.?**

I see what you mean, but I don’t see how you get it from the passage. Btw, the passage does not say that tongues being a warning specifically to the Jews. Paul says it is a sign to them that believe not.

 

How? By context. Just about every verse in that chapter is a rebuke to the use of tongues. It is a contrast between tongues and prophecy all the way through. Nowhere in that chapter does he encourage one to speak in tongues. Every verse is pointing to the encouragement of the gift of prophecy, because prophecy has understanding, and tongues does not. Therefore he would rather them not speak in tongues. They were abusing the gift. The first part of the verse was more like a sarcastic remark.

It would be like me saying to my children: "I would that you could all have corvettes (Not!), but rather that you live frugal lives.
No, I don't want my children to have corvettes, ets. It would ruin their lives. (And lets not get on a rabbit trail about how. Just take my word for it; I am their father).
Paul was making a sarcastic statement. If everyone spoke in tongues the result would be disastrous to the church. If this wasn't a sarcastic statement, and it is really what he wanted it would contradict everything that he said previously and would say after. Not everyone has the same gift. Read 1Cor.12:28-31. It would contradict that passage. Paul doesn't contradict himself.

Thus he says "rather that ye prophesy." Why? Prophesying is edifying. It edifies and gives understanding to the whole church. It is the better gift in this sense. Tongues caused chaos; prophecy brought understanding and edification--therefore prophesy.

Rather, I seem to think, as the Scipture teaches, that the gift of tongues, is the least of all the gifts (1Cor.12:28). They are listed in order of importance as those adverbs clearly indicate. Tongues is at the bottom of the list.
Mat.7:11 is a verse that Charismatics love to take out of context. Clearly Jesus isn't even referring to the gifts of the Spirit, which were unheard of, nor given until after Pentecost. So, a million dollars is a good thing for me. Will he give it to me if I ask him? That is the teaching of WOF leader Kenneth Copeland. Have faith in your faith.

He told them outright in 1Cor.3:1-3 that he could not teach them as spiritual people because they were carnal. It was a carnal church seeking after carnal things. Tongues was a carnal gift. They were speaking to be seen of men, just like the Pharisees. They were so carnal they had the audacity to believe that they were the only ones that had the Word of God. All the spiritual gifts were displayed at Corinth. They fell behind in none of them. They were proud about that fact. And that pride manifested itself in the seeking after tongues (the more showy gift), because it tended to make one look more spiritual, just like it does in Charismatic circles today.

1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
--They had all the gifts.

1 Corinthians 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?
--The essence of this verse: "Do you think that Word of God came only to you--that you are the only ones that have it???
They were proud. The showy gift of tongues had made them that way.

In a sense you are right. Tongues ceased by the end of the first century. Case closed. All other arguments are moot. So why debate it at all.
All of these points that I give you are predicated with: "Even if tongues still existed..."

It is quite apparent that speaking in tongues in Corinth was simply to get attention. That is why there was such a strong rebuke to the women. There were other rebukes as well. There was the restriction put on them not to speak more than two or three, and that in order. And those two or three had to have an interpreter. All of that points to the fact that many were standing up and speaking in tongues for the simple reason of getting attention. It was a showy gift.

That would be unscriptural to encourage someone to do something that is not Biblical. Tongues (as well as prophecy) have ceased. No I would never encourage that.

I have the Bible. Isn't that enough?
It plainly says for women to keep silent in the church. What part of that statement do you not understand??

I interpreted the passage within the confines of its context as it should have been. You have the right to disagree.

I believe the Bible literally. You mean you think that "woman" can mean a "man"??? That men should be...

It does. The whole tongue issue refers to those in the first century. Tongues ceased by the end of the first century. I explained that above.

That is precisely what the Charismatics do.
DHK

 

DHK,

Your argument that Paul's statement is akin to
"I would that you had all the Corvettes, but rather that you read frugal lives" doesn't make sense. That doesn't literally make sense. Why would you want your kids to have Corvettes if you wanted them to live frugally? People don't use a expression like that in English. Unless you can prove that they used an expression like that idiomatically in Greek, you have no case for your argument.

paul is not against speaking in tongues in the passage. He is against speaking in tongues without an interpretation. It is crystal clear right in the passage. When Paul finally draws a conclusion, he commands them to allow speaking in tongues, but for the speaker to remain silent in the church if there is no interpreter. Along the way he says that he will pray with his spirit (i.e. in tongues) and with the understanding. Why would he say he would speak in tongues. He also says he spoke in tongues more than all the Corinthians. Why would he say that if speaking in tongues were bad?

Why don't you try to read the passage again and push out of your mind your prejudice that speaking in tongues is a bad thing. Read it with the idea that tongues without interpretation was the problem (or read it with no preconcieved opinion and come to that conclusion.) And pray that the Spirit will open your mind up. Seriously, after all these conversations, it is difficult for me to understand how you could not see something so plain unless there were something blinding your understanding on the issue.

 

1. As you say tongues without interpretation was the problem. That in itself is one good reason why he would not want them all to speak in tongues. Not all have the same gift.
2. As per #1, he wouldn't want all to speak in tongues because someone must have the gift of interpretation.
#3. Paul himself limited the number of speakers to two, at the most 3. He therefore desired only a very few to have the gift of tongues, not a very many.
#4. Paul gives a great contrast as to the usefulness of tongues, and why they should not seek after them when he says: I would rather speak five words with understanding, than ten thousand words without understanding--that is, in tongues, in an unknow language.
--It is quite evident that Paul did not want all of the members to speak in tongues. Again, it goes directly contrary to the teaching given in 1Cor.12:28-31:

1 Corinthians 12:29-30 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?

The obvious answer to all of these questions is NO!
God does not give the gift of tongues, nor any other gift to all.
Tongues, as any other gift was given only to a select few.
DHK

 

Hi guys, Good discussion. Sorry i could not post for a couple days. anyway, I looked to see what John M. said about vs.5 with the phrase " I would that you all would speak in tongues' John M. called that type of speech Hyperbole. It is a way of emphasizing a point by stating the impossible. Paul did that earlier in 1 Cor. 7 in relation to marriage. He speaks of how marriage is fine and necessary and a good thing and then says the statement "I would that all men were even as myself". Paul knew that was impossible but he was making a distinct point. So it is with his statement on tongues. As DHK already said Paul is clear in 1 Cor 12 that not all have the same gift so there is no way he could wish seriously that all people had the gift of tongues. He was simply making a point for Emphasis. He was saying, "I wish, if it were possible, that you all could have the real gift of tongues, but it isn't possible". It really is that simple.

Link, I will look back at your sign and wonder question and answer later today or tomorrow. Take care,

In Christ,
Brian

 

Briguy:

Did you know that John McArthur belongs to the Church of Christ??

So how can he give an un-biased view of the gifts of the spirit?



Selah,

Tam

 

Will you please confirm this information before you post it (not that that is possible now). At least provide the evidence.
DHK