The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

Huff, Darrell. (1954). How to lie with statistics. Pictures by Irving Geis. New York, Norton.

Eveyone ought to read this book. It is done often in the world and in Christian circles.

Most Christian books are not original research. They are nothing more than someone who quotes someone, who quotes someone, who quotes someone else.

I have read several of MacArthurs books. I have almost all of his commentaries. In that book MacArthur sets off to try and prove his own agenda while at times ignoring the rather obvious. His entire agenda is that tongues is divisive therefore it is not of God. There are lots of preachers who are divisive too. That make preaching wrong. It the proper or improper use use that makes it of God or not.

If one believes that tongues is done away with does that mean knowledge is too.

How does he skirt the reference in scripture found in 1 Cor 14:18,19, "I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; however, in the church I desire to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue."

Just because a book has a million references does not mean it is any good. You never look at the number of references but the quality of the references. The person who does original research will not have many he can quote.

An obvious case is when Elijah went up against the prophets of Baal. Hiow many prophets of Baal and how many Elijahs?

 

You are joking? You think MacArthur could explain about the Spirit of God to me? Better think again!

I've read some of his explanations and he sounds nothing short of ridiculous. I'll take "Link" or David Bernard over MacArthur anytime.

MEE

 

Your quite right on that--at least partially. On any Biblical subject we should all end up quoting the Bible. Have you yourself read "Charismatic Chaos?" He writes about the Charismatic movement. Is it not obvious then that you must quote Charismatic sources. Flip through the book, and you see direct quotes from: Kenneth Hagin, Copeland, Benny Hinn, etc. He quotes extensively from the leaders of the Charismatic and Third Wave movement. What would you expect him to quote from?

Where do you get that idea from. Can you demonstrate that that was his agenda, or is that your opinion based on your own biased presuppositions.
His stated purpose in his introduction:

That doesn't sound like "his agenda is to show that tongues is divisive." It is unwise to bear false witness.

Do you believe what the Bible says?
1 Corinthians 13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Tongues ceased, and knowledge vanished away. It is not talking about common knowledge, of course. Common sense tells us that common knowledge will never vanish away. We will still have knowledge in Heaven. This is speaking of revelatory knowledge. The context is spirtual gifts. The gift of tongues, the gift of prophecy, and the gift of revelatory knowledge. Some were given a gift where they received special knowledge from God that was revealed to them at that time in history because they did not have the completed Word of God yet. When the Bible was completed these gifts would cease or vanish away. They would no more be needed.

The question ought to be: How do others skirt it? If anything this reference condemns the speaking of tongues in our modern day culture. Paul was a missionary. He went on 3 different missionary journeys in various areas of Europe, Asia, Asia Minor, and Macedonia. He established over 100 churches. In that time he encountered many different language groups. God had given him the gift of tongues which he used properly--to speak to others who would not have been able to understand his own language. There would have been some Jews present. The interpretation would always be for the sake of the Jews. For tongues was a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Then the real put down comes. As far as the Corinthians were concerned, who were abusing this showy gift, and didn't need to use it, Paul says: "I would rather speak 5 words with understanding than 10,000 words in tongues. He would rather say "Hello my name is Paul." (5 words) Rather then speak 10,000 words in an unknown tongue that no one could understand. Tongues was a useless gift, because it didn't bring any understanding or edification, unless there was proper interpretation. Much of the time there was not.

So then, you better look at the quality of his references. I have. I believe you are making baseless and false accusations which you can't back up.

And how does a first hand historical account prove anything. I am sure that if you read his book, you will find first hand accounts as well. But when you do, you will no doubt act as Link and Atestring, and discount them as experiences which cannot be verified. So either way he can't win.
DHK

 

DHK quoted a portion of a message from Walguy,
**********************************

My challenge for modern tongues speakers is to reconcile through Scripture the obvious contradiction between the unequivocal statement of Paul that the Gifts are given for the common good, and the modern concept of 'tongues' as something used to benefit yourself.
***********************************


If this were a contradiction, then scripture would be contradicting scripture. Paul makes it clear that uninterpreted tongues edifies the speaker, and allows for the speaker in tongues, in the case that there is no interpreter, to 'speak to himself and to God' but he is not allowed to speak in tongues in the church without an interpreter.


There is no reason to see scripture as contradicting scripture here. An individual manifestation of a gift of the Spirit can build up one individual, and the gift still be for the common good. For example, a personal prophecy can build up the one person who recieves it, but not be given to an entire congregation. The Old Testament has plenty of examples of personal prophecy. Paul recieved a personal prophecy through Agabus, which may have prepared him for the difficulty that lied ahead. If Paul had been alone when he spoke to Agabus, the whole body would not have been directly edified by the prophecy at that moment. But the gift of prophecy is still for the good of the whole body in general, even if on occasion the gift is used to minister to an individual part of the body. If one member of the body suffers, the whole members suffers. So it makes sense that if a gift is used to minister to just one part of the body, it can still be for the common good.

If Paul had used the gift of healing to heal himself, this could have benefited the whole by strengthening Paul so that he could ministe rto others in other ways. So the idea of tongues being used at time to build up one individual does not contradict the idea that gifts are for the common good, any more that personal prophecy contradicts this idea. In meetings of the church, however, gifts are to be used in a way that the whole body recieves edification, rather than being used to just edify one part (particularly not the very person who is using the gift.)

 

I hope I'm not straying off the topic, I would like to ask how have speaking in tongues edified you?

 

DHK wrote,
*************************
Reasons why tongues have ceased.
**********************

A lot of the things you post are not reasons for tongues to have ceased.

DHK wrote,
********************
1. Tongues today are not real languages, they gibberish. No one has yet proven that they are real languages. Therefore they are false, and not of God. The real Biblical gift has ceased.
******************

'No one has proven that DHK has a nose. Therefore he has no nose.' Is that logical? It would be an even more unreasonable statement if there were witnesses who testified to the fact that you had a nose. If you read reports about people who have recognized languages spoken 'in tongues' then you reject the evidence without looking into it or examining the witnesses. Then you assert that no one has proven that tongues are real languages.


DHK wrote,
******************
The modern day phenomena of speaking in tongues started at the beginnin of the 20th Century and from there rapidly grew. For you to attempt to point to one or two inidividuals in history who "might" have spoken in tongues is hardly evidence. There is no hard evidence that people spoke in tongues before the 20th Century. You can't come up with.
*******************

We have referred to many scriptures that show that tongues did not start in the 20th century. It is clear from the Bible that people spoke in tongues on the day of Pentecost. Paul also teaches that tongues is among the gifts given to the church. That is the issue here-- accepting these scriptures.

As for later references to tongues you speak as if you are an authority on something you know little or nothing about. I quoted from Ireneaus who spoke of tongues in his own day, and there is no good reason to reject Ireneaus testimony. Another poster referred you to a website which contains several other examples. If you were really serious about learning about this topic, instead of making such uninformed, yet bold assertions, then you would do some research. You could read _The Spirit and the Church_ by Burgess. You could use interlibrary loan in the US. Have you even looked up the web page mentioned earlier in this thread? If you want 'hard evidence' there is very hard evidence of speaking in tongues in England, Germany, the US and other places in the 1800's, starting in the 1830's. I could give you some pointers to do a search to find this information, but I doubt you are really interested, and I doubt it would cause you to be more careful about yoru historical assertions.

DHK
*** Not thousands today, but millions speak in a modern day phenomena called gibberish. It is not in the Bible because it is not of God. There are millions who do it. If it is so widespread, and of God, show me in history where such a widespread movement ever took place. Not just one or two individuals who supposedly spoke in tongues, but an entire movement. It can't be done. Tongues have ceased. *****


I really don't follow your point. Since when is truth defined by majority vote? Show me some evidence of churches between 300 AD and 1500 AD that believed in salvation by faith and practiced baptism of those who confessed their faith by immersion. If you can find any hard evidence, it would likely be little. I doubt you could show a widespread movement. Does that make these teachings false? Biblical truth is Biblical truth. Sometimes in history certain truths are widely believed in and sometimes they are widely rejected.

DHK
***The fact that they were real languages in Biblical times points to the fact that they have ceased. Get the picture straight.***

That doesn't make sense. Tongues being real languages is not an argument for tongues having already ceased.

***A foreign language would be spoken for the sake of all that were there except a few Jews. It would be translated into Hebrew or a language that the Jews would be able to understand. It was a sign to the Jews.****

I do not get what you are describing here. And I do not see where you get your idea of history. Hellenized Jews spoke Greek. Corinthian Gentiles spoke Greek. It seems unlikely that all the Gentiles in a church in a city like Corinth would have known a certain language that the Jews in the congregation did not know.


** Paul customarily took Jewish companions with him when he travelled. Also there were Jews dispersed abroad into all the nations at that time. It was a sign to the Jews that the gospel had gone to the Jews as well, even as God had to convince Peter with a vision in Acts 10. It was a sign that the gospel was for the gentile, and it was a sign to the unbelieving Jew, that the gospel was a genuine message from God that they needed to believe. ****

Most of the figures we see in the New Testament doing evangelistic work are Jews. Paul spoke of it in terms of being a light ot the Gentiles. But what does this have to do with tongues ceasing? Paul never makes the argument that you are making about tongues, and even if tongues were a sign to Jews in particular, it doesn't have anything to do with tongues ceasing. There are still Jews in the world today.

This idea about tongues being for a sign meaning tongues supposedly ceased sounds to me like it originated with someone who believed in REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY-- that after 70AD God was through with the Jews as a nation and was concerned with the church. Therefore, needing a special sign for the Jews would no longer be needed. It isn't a scriptural idea, but it is the best argument I could think of for someone trying to connect the idea of tongues as a sign for Jews with the cessation of tongues. You haven't made a good argument for tongues ceasing based on the idea of tongues as a sign. If tongues are for a sign to the Jews, then why would they not continue? There are still Jews, and God does still have a plan for Israel. So why would he stop the sign? We non-replacement theology people believe Paul when he speaks of Christ delivering Jacob in Romans 11. So why would God stop dealing with the Jews? If God had a special sign for them, why would he stop the sign? It doesn't make sense unless you believe in some long, complicated, unscriptural Replacement Theology argument.


DHK wrote
***************
2. In 1Cor.12:28 Paul puts the gift of tongues as the least of all the gifts. It is not an important issue, or an important gift. It is at the bottom of the list. Those who speak in tongues put it at the top of their list in comparison to the other gifts. They don't seek after the other gifts. They seek after tongues.
**************


Paul doesn't say whether tongues is the least of all the gifts. He has it at the bottom of _one_ list of gifts, and gift-lists are not always the same. We do not know where to rank tongues in relation to some of the gifts of Romans 12.

Your statement about those who speak in tongues putting tongues at the top of the list is a false generalization. Of course it is true of some people. But it is not true of all tongues speakers, and I can prove it from scripture. Paul spoke in tongues, and tongues was not on the top of his list. There are a lot of people who speak in tongues that emphasize prophecy and teach that it is a greater gift than tongues, and they encourage people to seek the gift of prophecy.

And it is not true that tongues speakers do not seek after other gifts. Tongues speakers, in my experience, are some of the most diligent at seeking after other gifts. How many anti-tongues people do you know of who pray for the gift of prophecy, or for that matter healing, miracles, or any of the other gifts Paul talks about in this chapter? I can't even think of any. But a lot of people who speak in tongues seek after these other gifts. Anyone who has been in Charismatic circles knows this, and you can see this on TV even with the more flamboyant characters that like to get air time. The stereotypical strawman type Charismatic that you like to lash out at seeks other gifts. So anyone who knows anything about Charismatics knows that your next to last statement in the quote above is patently false.

Do you see after gifts of the Spirit? Have you ever prayed to be able to prophecy or lay hands on the sick and for them to recover?

***3. Concerning the above point, nowhere in the Bible are we ever commanded or even is it suggested that anyone seek for the gift of tongues. There is no command or suggestion for anyone to speak in tongues. Yet this is what is precisely done. Instructions are given to speak in tongues. You are told to pray for tongues. You are told to seek after them. Bible tongues was a gift given miraculously to those were not expecting it. *******


First of all, the teaching by people who believe in the 'initial evidence' doctrine I have heard emphasizes being baptized with the Holy Spirit, and seeking for that.

Also, the Bible does not forbid seeking tongues. Jesus taught His disciples to pray for what they want. So it is not a sin to pray for such a gift and it is clear from scripture that we are allowed to do so. The Bible _ does_ forbid people from forbidding to speak with tongues. So if some people seek the gift of tongues, and you forbid speaking in tongues, it is you, and not they, who is in disobedience.

DHK wrote,
**********
4. Go through 1Cor.14--a rebuke to speaking in tongues. Those who speak in tongues do not keep the restrictions or conditions that Paul lays out for them.
*********

Paul corrects the Corinthians for using gifts wrongly and for not being adult in their thinking enough to realize how they should use gifts to edify the whole church. He does not rebuke them for speaking in tongues, but for doing so in the wrong way. He said he spoke in tongues himself. A lot of your 'rebukes' are eisegesis-- reading your own ideas into the text.

DHK wrote,
********
5. It has already been demonstrated that tongues is for the collective good of all the church. It was not to be spoken outside of the church.***********

and
*************
It was for the edification of the church. It was not a prayer language. It was for the church only. This is demonstrated in 1Cor.12 where the gifts are listed as gifts of the body. The body is the church--the local church. Tot to be used outside of the local church.
***************

Gifts are given for the common good of the body of Christ. But the Bible does not teach that gifts may only be used in a church meeting. Gifts of healing and the working of miracles are among the gifts listed in I Corinthians 12, but we see in Acts that Paul, Peter and others performed miracles when they were among unbelievers. Paul and Barnabas were preaching to a crowd of pagans (not the church) when, as they preached, one of the men had the faith to be healed. Paul saw this and declared the man healed in Jesus' name. Was it wrong for paul to use the gifts of the Spirit in evangelism? Was it wrong for him to use his gifts outside of a church meeting? If you say 'yes' then the problem is you are misinterpreting I Corinthians 12. I Corinthians 12 says the gifts are given for the common good but it does not say that gifts are only for the church meeting. Please do not go beyond what the scripture says when you interpret scripture.

Your assertion that tongues were not to be spoken outside the church meeting has no basis in scripture.


DHK wrote,
****** If you want to edify yourself, go to your room and sing spiritual songs, read your Bible, and pray: all in your own language. That is edifying. Tongues is not. *******

Here you contradict I Corinthians 14:4, which says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself. You repeatedly do that. I Corinthians 14:4 is correct when it says that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself. You are incorrect when you say that tongues is not edifying. Who would you have us believe, you or the Bible?

DHK wrote,
**********
7. 1 Corinthians 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.
--In contrast to prophecy (mentioned in vs.1) don't speak in tongues, because no one understands you. You are speaking mysteries. Understanding is the key. It is what Paul emphasizes throughout this whole chapter. This verse is a rebuke to those that speak in tongues.
*********


Your conclusion has no basis in the text. There is no rebuke for speaking in tongues here. This describes what tongues is like. This is a part of Paul's argument that tongues need to be interpreted in church, and not a rebuke for speaking in tongues. Why would Paul rebuke people for using one of God's gifts?


************
8. 1 Corinthians 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
--In contrast to tongues, it is prophecy that edifies, not tongues. Therefore prophesy. Leave tongues alone. It is the least of all the gifts.
************

If you believe that the warnings not to add to the book of revelation apply to those who get modern revelations, then why wouldn't you believe that they apply to interpreting I Corinthians to say things that it does not say?


Your interpreting into this verse that Paul's intent is to say to leave tongues along is a terrible case of eisegesis that you need to be cured from. "charismata'--spiritual gifts-- is closely related to the word for 'grace.' Why would you teach people to reject an aspect of God's grace? If tongues is the 'least of the gifts' then it doesn't make sense that Paul would say to 'leave tongues alone.' Read chapter 12. Paul explains that even the least parts of the body are needed. All the gifts need to function. All the parts need to function. We should pursue the greater gifts.

At Christmas time, kids get excited when they open up toys. But how do they feel when Grandma gives them socks? Not too good. How would you like it if you had a kid who opened the socks and said "Socks! I hate socks! How come you didn't get me a toy?" We can understand children not loving socks, but we do not want them to be rude. As you grow up, you learn to appreciate gifts that people give you, hopefully, and be thankful.

Your attitude toward tongues seems to be like the attitude of the child in my analogy. You just do not like the gift and you are very vocal about it. It is not good to teach people to reject any of the gifts of the Spirit. Paul is not telling the Corinthians to leave tongues alone. Even if it is the lowest gift he ranks in that list in chapter 12, it is still a gift from God. God paid a high price to have a church to give gifts to, so we need to honor even the 'least' of the gifts of the Spirit He gives us, and be thankful.

DHK wrote,
**********
9. 1 Corinthians 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
--This is a rebuke. The purpose of all the gifts is to edify the whole church. Tongues (if it edifies at all), will only edify the person that speaks it. Therefore don't speak in tongues. It has no value. It is meant for the entire church. Therefore, Paul says, prophecy. For when you prophesy, the whole church is edified.
***********

You are saying things Paul clearly does not. You say 'Tongues (if it edifies at all)'... Paul does not say this. He says plainly that "he that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself". It is in the very text you quote. Your conclusion "Therefore don't speak in tongues" is nonesense. If speaking in tongues edifies the speaker, then this is a _positive_ thing, howbeit, much less positive than edifying the church. One person has value, and therefore, edifying one person has value. So your statement 'It has no value' is clearly false.

Paul does encourage the Corinthians to prophesy. He encourages those who speak in tongues to pray that they might interpret. He forbids tongues without interpretation IN CHURCH, but he does not forbid tongues without interpretation outright. And he allows the man who speaks in tongues if there is no interpreter, to keep silent in the church and to speak to himself and to God. The plain sense of the text is that the speaking to himself and to God would be in tongues. Why should we believe otherwise (unless we have an unscripturally-supported prejudice against speaking in tongues.)

***
11. 1 Corinthians 14:6 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?
--Paul himself wouldn't speak in tongues to them. He had the gift, but he wouldn't use it. That in itself speaks volumes here.*****


Paul doesn't say he wouldn't speak in tongues. Paul coming to them speaking in tongues would not profit them___ unless he spoke to them by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine. If the content of a message in tongues were one of these things ____and it were interpreted____, might Paul not come to them speaking in tongues? That is one way to view the verse.

Notice also that Paul speaks in tongues, but when he comes to 'you'--speaking to a ___church____, tongues (without interpretation at least) will not profit them. Later he says he speaks in tongues more than them all YET IN THE CHURCH he had rather speak 5 words with the understanding than 10,000 with an unknown tongues. Notice, 'IN THE CHURCH.' Tongues do not profit other people without interpretation. This is the point Paul is making in this passage and not your point to 'leave tongues alone.' You are the one who has the negative attitude toward tongues, not Paul. Paul is against not interpreting tongues in church meetings.

**** In Acts 2 we find that the new believers continued in the Apostles doctrine daily. No mention is made of tongues. 3,000 people that had just been saved. What was important? Doctrine, not tongues. *******


I would agree that sound apostolic doctrine is more important than speaking in tongues. But I disagree with the idea that tongues is not important. All of God's gives have importance. We should consider them important because God entrusted them to us, and we are to be good stewards of God's grace. If you do not consider something important, who can you be a good steward of it? How can the church be a good steward if it doesn't consider what it stewards to be important?


*****************
13. 1 Corinthians 14:8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
--The trumpet had (and stil has) various uses. The trumpet was used to call a retreat, to call to march forward, the morning call, etc. If the call to retreat was confused with the call to go forward, there would be disaster, confusion. And so tongues causes disaster and confusion. That is Paul's point here.
*************

No. Paul's point is that if the call is uncertain, who shall prepare himself to the battle. Notice he does not say anything about marching forward and retreating, but about preparing for battle. This is all part of Paul's point that tongues need to be interpreted, and that they do not edify the listeners unless there is an interpretation. He is not trying to make tongues seem intrinsically bad. He is not saying they 'cause disaster.' Your wartime scenario is potentially a lot worse than Paul's. Paul's has to do with not being able to communicate. Yours has to do with giving the wrong orders.

DHK wrote,
**************
14. 1 Corinthians 14:9 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.
--The point is made even more clear. Unless your words are clearly understood, they have no understand but are as words spoken into the air with no meaning whatsoever. The gift of tongues then is a useless gift. Understanding is key.
****************

From the context of the passage, it is clear that tongues is not a useless gift. However, as the next few verses indicate _ from the perspective of the hearer__ tongues are useless unless there is an interpretation.

DHK wrote
*******
15. 1 Corinthians 14:10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
--There are many kinds of voices in this world (as there are languages), and they all have significance. But tongues have no significane, because no one can understand them.
********

You are saying the opposite of what Paul is saying. Tongues _do _ have signification. (You say significance.) But, as the next verse explains, if the other person does not _know_ the tongue, then he does not understand.

DHk wrote,
*******
16. 1 Corinthians 14:11 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.
--If I go to a foreign nation, and I don't know a word of that language, I will be to him as a barbarian (foreigner WEB). Try as we may we will not be able to understand each other. The same is true of those that speak in tongues. There is no understanding. It is the least of all the gifts. It is useless.
*******

Here you trash God's gift again, calling it 'useless.' Would you say that if your mother gave you a gift you didn't like? Would you open a Christmas present and call it 'useless' in her hearing. I hope not, especially since we care commanded to honor our father and mother. We are also supposed to honor God. Why would you call His gift useless? If tongues is low in the ranking of gifts, that does not make it useless. Didn't you read that passage about one part of the body saying to another "I have no need of thee?" We are not supposed to do that. Some people are gifted with tongues.

TOngues is not 'useless.' It edifies the speaker, and it edifies the church with interpretation. But without interpretation, it does not help anyone beside the speaker. This is a point Paul is making in the chapter, and not the idea that 'tongues is useless.' Your negative attitude toward God's gift is showing, and you are reading your own attitude toward tongues into the text.

DHK wrote,
***************
17. 1 Corinthians 14:12 Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church.
--They were zealous to have spiritual gifts, but they were zealous for the wrong gift, for speaking in tongues did not edify the whole church. All the gifts were given for edification of the whole church. Some used tongues for their own private use (as some do today), and Paul rebukes it.
***************

You are reading things into the text that are not there again. This verse contains no rebuke for using gifts to edify oneself. Rather it _encourages_ gifts that edify the church. Paul wants the Corinthians to seek to edify the church. But he does not say it is wrong to use a gift to edify oneself. Building ones self up in the Lord is a good thing. Jude even says build yourselves up in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost. Wouldn't you agree someone can obey Jude by praying individually, and not just by praying in a group?


DHK wrote,
******19. 1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--Most Charismatics overlook this verse. Speaking in tongues is utterly useless unless you have the interpretation. You have to be able to interpret, that is, have the gift of interpretation yourself--if there is no one else to do it. Otherwise your understanding is unfruitful. It is not edifying. Praying in tongues is not edifying unless you can interpret it.******


Why should I believe your assertion that if the speaker in tongue's understanding is unfruitful, that his speaking in tongues is not edifying? I see nothing in the passage to support this assertion. Paul says if he speaks in tongues, his spirit prays, but his understanding is unfruitful. If his spirit prays, how can I conclude that this type of praying is not edifying to his spirit? I cannot conclude this. I need other scripture to determine whether tongues is edifying.

And we have already discussed this scripture at length. Paul says that he that speaks in togues edifies himself. It is clear from this passage the natue of tongues, that the speaker in tongues does not understand what he says without the gift of interpretation. Yet Paul says that he who speaks in tongues edifies himself.

Therefore I will choose to believe scripture rather than your assertion that speaking in tongues does not edify the speaker if he does not interpret it.


**** If you don't know what you are saying how can it be edifying?*****

1. Because the Bible says that it is. (to the speaker)
2. Because the bible says that the speaker in tongues's spirit prays.

The Bible says it. What else is there to argue about?

****20. 1 Corinthians 14:15 What is it then? 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.
--You must be able to interpret what you say: even what you sing and pray. That is the context given in the above two verses. There must be understanding. The same context is carried into the next verse. ****


This verse could also be interpreted to balancing praying in tongues with praying in the understanding. But I tend to view it as speaking of interpreting tongues. Keep in mind, here, that Paul is arguing in favor of interpretation, but he is not saying that speaking in tongues without intepretation is unedifying to the speaker. If he were, he would be contradicting verse 4.

****21. 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?
--Sometimes occasion arose where it was necessary to pray in another language. If there was no interpretation, those (unlearnd) or not acquainted with the language spoken, would not even know when the Amen would be said. You had to had the gift of interpretation as well as the gift of speaking in tongues.****


Paul didn't say this happened. But notice he does not say an 'occasion arose when it was necessary to pray in another language...' I really don't get why you would get the idea, out of the blue, that Paul is talking about natural prayer in a foreign language. He even uses the phrase 'bless with the spirit.' And I do not think Paul thought prayer in tongues was necessary in church. It would be allowed with interpretation, but not without it. Paul is saying that people can not even say 'Amen' to prayers in tongues since they do not know what to agree with. Btw, if your argument that you can't understand tongues makes it scary and so you could leave it alone (they could be saying bad things...etc.) were valid, then why doesn't Paul have that kind of attitude toward tongues in the passage? Why doesn't he forbid it outright?

*** I know what this is like. I have had to interpret my own sermon on the mission field. But that is not the gift of tongues or of interpretation. It is plain hard work of studying other languages. ****

That would have to be hard. I gave a sermon in English for an Indonesian audience yesterday. They asked if I could translate myself, but I opted for a translator. I can do English, and I can do Indonesian, but translating yourself, particularly in a sermon format, would have to be incredibly difficult. How can you keep track of what you said in what language and still remember what you were saying?

DHK wrote,
****22. 1 Corinthians 14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
--Still in the same context, tongues without interpretation gives no edification, no understanding, and is rendered useless.
*****

It is not 'useless.' The speaker gives thanks well. He also edifies himself. Notice that it is only 'the other' who is not edified. The man who speaks in tongues edifies himself, as the Bible teachers.

DHK
**********
23. 1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
--Paul says this because he used tongues properly. There was a proper use for tongues. The Corinthians misused the gift. They really did not need to use it very often. They all spoke the same language (Greek). It was the universal language of the known world, and they were right in the center of Greek as it were right then.
On the other hand Paul traveled far and wide on three different missionary and established approximately 100 different churches (see Sir William Ramsey's archeological work on the travels of Paul), and had much occasion for the use of tongues in the different nations that he went.
***********

Paul says in the passage that speaks in tongues speaks not to men, but to God. Why would he just suddenly jump to the idea of evangelizing in tongues, without telling us that is what he is talking about.

I do not have access to interlibrary loan, etc. Could you tell me a little about Ramsey's arguments for the 100 plus churches. I do not see this in scripture. How did he count a church, btw? 100 churches on the city level or 100 later congregations in the cities Paul evangelized?

*********
25. 1 Corinthians 14:20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
--This is an interesting verse. He tells them to quit acting like little children act in desiring one of the more showy gifts, like tongues, because they thought it made them look more spiritual. Its outward manifestation was something that this carnal church desired. They were acting childish. Paul rebukes them for this. They ought to be desiring gifts like prophesying which give understanding.
*********


This verse, and the entire passage does not say anything about the Corinthians being motivated to speak in tongues because they wanted to be showy. A lot of people assume it because of the fact that the Corinthians were so carnal in other aspects of their lives. Whether part of their motivation was to be 'showy' we do not know. Paul here indicates that they were childish in their ___understanding___ and says nothing about them speaking in tongues out of an attention seeking motivation. To assume that they were doing so out of an attention seaking motivation is just that-- an assumption. It is not in the text.

The Corinthians were childish in their _understanding_ of spiritual things. So Paul helps fix their problem by helping them understand the importance of edifying the church, and what activities that they were to do that would actually edify the church.

 

DHK said
*** Not thousands today, but millions speak in a modern day phenomena called gibberish. *****

I say:

First of all, the ONLY place I have heard it called "gibberish" is on boards like this by people who don't want to believe God could do something like that.

Paul said in 1Cor-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.

The tongues of men he is talking about are the ones he learned from study.

The tongues of angels he mentioned are from God and may not neccesarily be something that anyone here on earth would understand.

No need to reply, DHK, I know you won't agree!!

Peace

Tam

 

"Gibberish" may be a made up word. I am uncertain as to its derivation. Like modern day tongues it is not in the Bible. You can't find it in the Bible, just like you can't find modern day tongues in the Bible. It is an apt word to describe the confusion the reigns when people of today speak in tongues. It has nothing to do with whether or not peope want to believe God could do something. I talked to a Mormon recently. He wants to become God, or at least a god. Too bad! The Bible doesn't teach that. Likewise, the Bible doesnt' teach that Christ was a created being, born out of a sexual union between "god" and a "godess" from another planet. He is deceived. You can believe as sincerely as you want, but your sincerity in your belief won't make you right. You can belief in the genuineness of tongues all you want, but the sincerity of your belief won't make you right. The Bible teaches that tongues were a real known langauge (not the gibberish you speak), that it was a gift bestowed on a few (not many), that it was a gift bestowed on a few in the first century, not a worldwide phenomena contrained to the 20th and 21st centuries. Sincerity is not the ground of truth, neither is experience. Only the Bible is the fondation of truth. And the Bible teaches that tongues have ceased.

That is possible. But that is still hypothetical. It doesn't say that he did. It says "though" or "if" perhaps meaning "if I spoke all the languages of mankind." I am not sure what Paul had in mind, I only know that it is a conditional statement, so put grammatically that it is something that he never did.

The tongues of angels are exactly what they say they are: "tongues of angels" and not of man. Man doesn't speak the languages of angels. The statement is conditional. Paul was saying even if I could do this, and have not love I would be as a tinkling cymbal and sounding brass. These talents would be useless to me. He never said he could do them. The Greek structure does not even allow for the possibility of him ever doing them.
Paul was not God. He was not omniscient. He did not have all knowledge, as the next verse would indicated. Would you infer that he did. If you say yes, you would be guilty of blasphemy. You cannot say that he had all knowledge, just as you cannot say that he spoke with the tongues of angels. You have to say no to both statements. You have to be consistent. Both statements are conditional. They are conditional on the word "though" or "if."

It doesn't matter. It needs to be replied to. The truth needs to be known, and you need to know the truth.
DHK

[ December 12, 2004, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

You are right DHK, the truth needs to be told, and there are some on here that don't have the truth yet.

But we can only pray.

Peace.

Tam

 

You misunderstand the Scripture and take it out of its context to make it fit your own agenda. First tongues is never to be used outside the church. It was a gift given for the churh, as all the gifts were given for the edification of the church. No gift was given to any one person for his or her personal selfish edification. To even think that is absurd. God gave gifts to the church. The Scripture is plain on that. Read and study chapter 12 in 1Cor.

You are right in that there is no need to see any contradition here. So why are you making the Scripture contraditing itself. It doesn't. All the gifts were given to the entire church. Case closed. The Scripture doesn't contradict itself. Prophecy was never given for the edification of one person. It was given to the whole church. Is it natural for one to preach themselves? Give me a break! One preaches to the entire congregation that the entire congregation may be edified. You are way out in left field on this one. Tongues served the same purpose when tongues was interpreted. And tongues could only be spoken when it was interpreted. Since the stipulation of interpretation of tongues was always there, tongues as a prayer language is immediately disqualified, just as it is disqualified for not serving to edify the entire church. The Bible does not contradict itself. Your understanding of it is lacking.

We have no evidence of Paul healing himself. That is not what the gift of healing was for. God did not hand out selfish gifts. He handed out gifts for the entire church. They were not for anyone's personal use. You seem to have a warped sense of the purpose of the spiritual gifts. Either that or you are grasping at straws for justification of modern day tongues. Probably the latter is true. Face it, tongues have ceased. The modern day phenomena of tongues (more accurately called gibberish) has ceased.
DHK

 

DHK,

You are inventing things that are not in the Bible. The Bible never restricts the use of gifts to church meetings. If it did, Philip, Paul, and many others would have been disobedient. Gifts of the Spirit are given to build up the body. But that does not mean that gifts cannot be used outside of the church meeting, or to evangelize those who are not a part of the body. the apostles did miracles in evangelism, and not only in the church. If gifts are given to build up the body, that does not mean they have no other use (like evangelism.) You are creating a concept that is not in scripture. It is a figment of your imagination.

If one part of the body uses a gift to build up another part, this is still 'for the common good.' If a few people are gathered around and one person gives another a personal prophecy, as was probably the case when Agabus prophesied over Paul, this can build up one part of the body (or a few parts) and works toward the common good. This is also in line with what Paul says in I Corinthians 12 about the parts of the body needing one another. It does not limit the ministry of one body part to another to the church meeting.

Would you extend this principle to other areas of Christian life? Would you outlaw private prayer, private scripture reading, family devotions etc? What if a gift of the Spirit was used during one of these activities? Would you say "No, you can only use gifts in the meetings of the local church!" That doesn't make any sense. Neither does your argument that tongues can only be used in church meetings. The Bible simply does not teach this.

The word of knowledge is a gift of the Spirit. Paul recieved revelations when he was in the desert alone with the Lord. Christ appeared to Paul when he was alone. But these experiences strengthened Paul and gave him direction, and worked toward the common good. Your interpretation of I Corinthians 12 would forbid a lot of things the apostles did. Where was Jesus' local church when He turned the water into wine?

For that matter where was the local church (or the congregation of Israel) when Moses threw down his rod and it turned into a snake for the first time?


DHK also wrote,
****did. It says "though" or "if" perhaps meaning "if I spoke all the languages of mankind." I am not sure what Paul had in mind, I only know that it is a conditional statement, so put grammatically that it is something that he never did. ****

What you are saying about the 'conditional' is not true. If someone says, "If this be treason, I am guilty" he is not saying he has committed treason. He is not saying he has not committed treason. Your 'grammar' would have this be a denial of committing treason.

If you have some evidence that the Greek form used for 'if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels' makes it clear that Paul did not speak in the tongues of men and of angels, then show a real source from someone who really knows Greek to back up your opinion. If you arrived at your conclusion from your understanding of 'conditional' in grammar, then your conclusion is unreliable.

 

When ridiculous arguments like the Chineese laundry man story and the ellusive greek Scholar from Vancouver get in the mix i no longer take these post to be serious. Credibility has been lost.

 

Amen to that Atestring!!

Peace,

Tam

 

Then sit down and read a good book like Charismatic Chaos, where all such incidents are well documented.
DHK

 

Then sit down and read a good book like Charismatic Chaos, where all such incidents are well documented.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]DHK, do you sleep with that book under you pillow at night?

MEE

 

I don't invent things. I go by the Scripture, instead of twisting the Scripture to try to make it fit my own pre-conceived ideas. Your problem lies in the purpose of tongues.

The Purpose of Tongues.
The purpose of tongues was two-fold:
1. It was to edify the entire church.
2. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew.
Beyond this the only other purpose it had, was in connection with prophecy and revelatory knowledge (1Cor.13:8), a spiritual gift soon to cease when God's revelation would be complete. The context of 1Cor.13-8-13 indicates that God's revelation would be complete or perfected very soon—when that which is "perfect" is come. Indeed, by the time the Book of Revelation was completed, the gift of tongues had already ceased. It had fulfilled one of the purposes that God had given it—that of giving extra needed revelation to the churches until the churches had the Bible, God's complete revelation. That is why these three gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8 are called revelatory gifts, and would only last until God's revelation would be complete. It sets the context for the following chapter, chapter 14, of which gift has more value. The gift of tongues was being misused. It did not have the value of prophecy for it had to be interpreted to be understood. It was a gift, like every other gift that was given to the entire church. There is no gift that was given to a single individual, for one individual's edification or purpose. That concept is foreign to the Bible and unscriptural. It is that concept I want to consider now.

1 Corinthians 12:1 And concerning the spiritual things, brethren, I do not wish you to be ignorant;
--In these three chapters: 12-14, Paul considers the topic of spiritual gifts. He says about them that he does not want you to be ignorant. He is writing to the Corinthian Church in particular. Keep in mind that the brethren here are the believers at the Corinthian Church. That is the context.

From verses 4-11 he gives a detailed list of the gifts that were given to the Corinthian Church.
From verses 12-26 he illustrates the church and compares it to the human body. The local church is just like the human body divided into parts. Just as each part of the body has a function to perform, and one member cannot function without the other, the local church is the same way. He is speaking specifically to the Corinthian Church. This is not speaking of any universal invisible church. That was unknown in Paul's day. It was a concept developed much later that is unscriptural. The word "church" simply means assembly. He is writing to this assembly which he likens to the body of Christ. In this body of Christ, each member has its own function, and each member cannot clamour to have the same position.

1 Corinthians 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
--Every time the word "body" is used, the local church is referred to. Every time "members" is used it refers to members of this local church, in particular the members of the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
--The local church is made up of many members (just as a body is), with each one having its own function and purpose.

1 Corinthians 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
--As you can see this can only refer to a local church. We as believer suffer when one of the members of our own church suffer—come down with cancer, suffer a death, is hospitalized for some reason, etc. We suffer with them. But we do not necessarily suffer with those believers in Sudan, Nigeria, Argentina, Brazil, Uganda, India, etc. of whom we no nothing about. They suffer as well, perhaps more than we. But we can't share in their sufferings, for we are ignorant of them. We suffer with our own "members" sufferings. He is speaking of the local church. He is writing to the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 12:27 and ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
He calls this church, this assembly A body of Christ. There is no definite article (the) in the Greek. It was inserted by the translators to make sense. The indefinite article would make sense as well.

1 Corinthians 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
--If one denies that these gifts are not put in order of primary importance then they are denying Scripture itself. Look at the adverbs.
The show that they are set in order of importance: first, secondarily, thirdly, after that, then. Last of all we have the gift of tongues at the bottom of the list, for it is the least of all the gifts. The list is given in importance of the gifts, with the Apostles and prophets being first, and tongues at the end.

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 these rhetorical questions is no. The Apostolic Age ended at the first century just as did the rest of the gifts. That is implied in this statement. Also indicated is not everyone in the local church had the same gifts, including tongues, but the gifts were definitely given to the local church and for no other purpose but for the local church.

1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
Paul is addressing the Corinthian Church. That is understood in this statement. The command that he is making is to the believers of the church in Corinth. All throughout this chapter references are made to the church. There is never any reference made to any situation outside of the church. Situations outside of the church can only be made by inference or conclusions made by reading into the Scripture things that are not there, or by using arguments from silence. All of these are unscriptural. Paul in this entire chapter deals with the misuse of tongues in the local church. Why? Because the gift of tongues was given for use in the local church and only for use in the local church. Any use outside of the local church was wrong.
The command for women to be silent in the church, was given because Paul was addressing matters related to the local church.
The command not to speak in tongues, because if an unbeliever should enter in he would think that you were all mad. "You" is who? He was addressing the church at Corinth—the local church. Every verse is addressed to the local church at Corinth. There is no verse that allows for tongues outside of the local church. There is no gift of the Spirit that was given for use outside of the local church.
Don't base your doctrine on the book of Acts. The Book of Acts was a transitional period, when churches were just beginning to be formed. Signs and wonders were the identifying marks of an Apostle. So naturally the Apostles did miracles outside of the church. That was in the Book of Acts. But you don't find that in any of the epistles. The epistles were all addressed to local churches, and/or pastors of local churches. Paul writes to the Corinthians in this epistle to help correct the problems that they were having. It was their request (see 1Cor. 7:1). Tongues was a gift only for the local church, never to be used outside of it, never intended as a private prayer language.
DHK

 

It is his book. That is false allegation you just made. I have the hard copy right here in my library. He makes extensive documentation, much of it from first hand sources such as TBN itself. He was kind enough to put it on the web for others to read.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Which is not from the link you provided. Here is what it says at the top of each page when you follow a link (with minor changes to reflect which sermon was transcribed):

So, I have not born false witness. His book may do what you say (although i have not read it yet, so I cannot tell), but this link does not as it is transcribed sermons and not the book.

 

So, I have not born false witness. His book may do what you say (although i have not read it yet, so I cannot tell), but this link does not as it is transcribed sermons and not the book. </font>[/QUOTE]Get a hold of yourself TC. Many of the "books" I have in my library are books of sermons, but books nevertheless. Often a commentary is composed of a book of sermons. Check out the library that Ray Steadman has on line. Each one of his books consists of sermons that he has preached on almost every book of the Bible. Many preachers also preach topically, and yet the book they publish still consists of a series of messages that they have put together over time that they have preached them. So what is your beef? So he preached the contents of his book before he put it into print! Is that a problem for you? Does that make the book any less a book. Or don't you think preachers have reliable information? Just what is your problem here??
DHK

 

I wonder if books that have chapters that end in a prayer, scare off Charismatics?

 

I think that just because a preacher stands up and preaches a sermon, does not automatically make it the absolute truth.

And no matter how many of them he put in a book, it still does not mean everything is true.

If I put all my sermons in a book, would any of you believe everything I said?? Of course not.


Peace,

Tam