1 Cor. 12-14

[awaken]

No, you are determined to use the Word of God to justify your experience. You experience is near and dear to you and you won't give it up. Everything revolves around it. Your doctrine revolves around your experience. Let's see once more how the Scriptures are totally against speaking in another language in this day and age.

1. There is no such thing as a private prayer language taught in the Bible. There never was, is not, and never will be. It doesn't exist.

I have shown different! When we talk to God that is prayer!
Acts 2 They were magnifying God! Talking to God!
Acts 10 they were doing the same as Acts 2 praising God!
1 Cor. 14:2 says you speak to God, that is praying!
vs. 14 If I (Paul) pray in tongues (which he does vs. 18) my spirit prays!
vs. 15 Speaks of praying both in the spirit (tongues) and with understanding (understood language).
vs 28 If there is no interpreter...pray to God! That is prayer in private between yourself and God!

2. All spiritual gifts mentioned in 1Cor.12 were supernatural and given to first century churches, given only to first century churches, for the revelation of God was not yet complete.

YOur opionion not backed up with scripture!

3. They were given to the churches and not for private use. Just as the gift of healing, helps, administration, miracles, etc. was not used for oneself to practice at home, neither was the gift of tongues. It is totally absurd even to think that such a thing was possible. All the gifts were given for the edification and understanding of the entire church; never just one individual.

They were given to edify, exort and comfort! They were given to the church for the church...and the church is still here! Prayer was also given to the church..but it is not limited to just the assembly!

4. Tongues ALWAYS had to be interpreted. If tongues were not interpreted the person had to remain silent. They were not to exercise their gift at all.

Please quote the whole scripture! vs 28 "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself AND GOD!

5. Women were not permitted to speak in tongues whatsoever. They were to maintain absolute silence in the church.

This is not speaking of tongues! How do you reconcile this scripture?
1 Corinthians 11:5: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved."

6. Tongues were a sign to the unbelieving Jew. If there is no unbelieving Jew present there is no need to speak in tongues.

You leave out parts of scripture that does not agree with your theories!

7. Tongues are a sign that designated one as an apostle, authenticated his message and him as an apostle.

Wrong! Others spoke in tongues not just the apostles.

8. Tongues was a vehicle for revelation, and would cease at the end of the first century when the last book of the Bible would be written. And that is exactly what happened.

You have yet to show me where tongues are used to reveal. What are they to reveal? THey are speaking to God. Magnifying and praising God (Acts 2 and 10), speaking to God (1 Cor. 14)

9. Historically we have only 3 cases of tongues. In Acts 2, 10, and 19. We don't read of any others except in the Book of Acts, and in a general way that Paul refers to. But Paul died ca. 68 A.D. Tongues were already beginning to fade out when First Corinthians was being written. By the time the Book of Revelation was written it had probably already ceased. There is no history of tongues from that time until 1905 which is the beginning of the Charismatic movement. Thus the Charismatic rules out 19 centuries of Christendom inferring that they are all unscriptural--some of the most Godly men that ever lived, lived during that period. But you don't care about that.

So you back your doctrine on history and not the Bible? THe Bible is clear when the work of the Holy Spirit will end! As long as the church is here on earth the Holy Spirit will be here! We are not to quench the work of the Holy Spirit! We are not to deny the Power of the Holy Spirit!

10. Paul stressed the insignificance of tongues when he said: "I would rather speak five words with understanding then 10,000 words in an unknown tongue." 5:10,000! That is quite a contrast isn't it? To put it more mathematically it is a ratio of 1:2,000. Speaking in your own language or with understanding is two thousand times more important than speaking with tongues.

Where did Paul say he would rather speak that? In church! But he also said he spoke in tongue more than anyone!! Maybe that is because speaking in tongues is speaking to God!

11. Read 1Cor.12:28. All the gifts are listed in order of importance and tongues are listed last, as the least important of all the gifts. It was not one of the more important gifts.

Your point?

12. We are never told to seek after tongues.

Who is seeking tongues?

13. "Do all speak in tongues." The answer to the rhetorical question is "No." All had a gift, but it wasn't the same one, and they were to be content with the one that they were given of God. To seek a gift that God had not given you was sinful.

Sinful? He said in 14:1 to desire spiritual gifts especially prophesy. I agree with scriptures not all are called to speak in tongues AT CHURH.

14. Nowhere is the gift of tongues directly connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These are two separate events and doctrines.

When do you believe you can manifest the Holy Spirit?

Now that still is not all the restrictions on tongues but it is enough.
It still is not all the reasons why a person should not even try to speak in tongues but it is enough. It is enough that you cannot go through that entire list and respond with Scripture to each one and prove them wrong.

But I did! and I have through this whole thread...you just ignore the scriptures that I post!

If you were honest you would have to admit, given the evidence above, that speaking in tongues, is not a Biblical gift for today.
If you do not know what you are speaking, and no one else doesn't know what you are speaking you can be assured it is not of God.

But God knows what is said because it is the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance (Acts 2:4)
YOu have proven nothing with your post except why you are in unbelief about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Without faith we can not please God! If you do not believe what the scriptures say you will not manifest what the word says that you can.

 

[plain_n_simple]

I think a lot of people are afraid of the Holy spirit manifesting. They are sure if you start thinking supernatural, it cannot be from God because they have no experience of Christ manifesting. then come all the doctrines of unbelief.

 

[awaken]

I think a lot of people are afraid of the Holy spirit manifesting. They are sure if you start thinking supernatural, it cannot be from God because they have no experience of Christ manifesting. then come all the doctrines of unbelief.

Today there are hundreds of Baptist and evangelical churches moving in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet there are those that try to quench the fire!

 

[Iconoclast]

Today there are hundreds of Baptist and evangelical churches moving in the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet there are those that try to quench the fire!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[plain_n_simple]

Does you church have a website Icon?

 

[DHK]

I have shown different! When we talk to God that is prayer!

My statement was: There is no such thing as private prayer prayer language taught in the Bible. In the light of that statement how do your answers hold up?

Acts 2 They were magnifying God! Talking to God!

They were not praying. There is no one on this board that will agree with you on this point. The verb used is lelew which means speaking, saying, telling and even preaching. But it does not mean "praying." They were speaking forth the praises of God. They were not praying!

Acts 10 they were doing the same as Acts 2 praising God!

Give chapter and verse and demonstrate that they were praying privately in tongues. Nowhere does the Bible give any evidence of that.

1 Cor. 14:2 says you speak to God, that is praying!

No it does not. It is speaking about being in the church, being in public, speaking with understanding, not a private prayer language.

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.
--There is not one word of praying here. That is your imagination. You are twisting the Scriptures. The one who is speaking in another language does not speak to men because men cannot understand him. He speaks to God for God can understand other languages. But as for today's modern-day tongue phenomena, God can't even understand that! It isn't a language of any sort. It is unintelligible. It is not Biblical. You admit that you don't understand it, and can't find out the language you speak in.

vs. 14 If I (Paul) pray in tongues (which he does vs. 18) my spirit prays!

He is speaking in the church. He prays publicly aloud in the church.
These two verses go together and don't make sense read apart:

1 Corinthians 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in another language pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--If you are going to speak in another language pray for the gift of interpretation (if you don't have one). Why? Because if you pray in another language your human spirit may pray but mind is unfruitful. What a useless exercise this is. He was condemning it.
Then he says if you are going to speak in tongues speak with an interpreter, and if you don't have an interpreter, then SHUT UP!!!!

vs. 15 Speaks of praying both in the spirit (tongues) and with understanding (understood language).

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.
--First everything that Paul says in this verse is for the church.
Therefore everything Paul says is not private but public.
"In the spirit" is used for public singing as much as it is for public praying. There is still nothing here about a private prayer language.

vs 28 If there is no interpreter...pray to God! That is prayer in private between yourself and God!

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God.
If there is no interpreter then shut up. Speak to God.
IOW, there is no such thing as a private prayer language--nowhere taught in the Bible. It isn't there. You have not given a single verse to demonstrate this.

YOur opionion not backed up with scripture!

I said:

2. All spiritual gifts mentioned in 1Cor.12 were supernatural and given to first century churches, given only to first century churches, for the revelation of God was not yet complete.

It is not opinion it is fact. It is based on Scripture. You won't even examine the Scripture. As I said in my quote you won't and can't refute these truths with Scripture. I can give you plenty, but here is one:

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.
--The gifts were given to the church. It says so right there. How can you deny that?

They were given to edify, exort and comfort! They were given to the church for the church...and the church is still here! Prayer was also given to the church..but it is not limited to just the assembly!

Everytime "church" is used in the NT it means "assembly." So, yes it is limited to the assembly, the local church, and not to be used outside of it. That is the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be used wherever the church gathers. When prayer is given to the local church it is for public prayer, not private. Private prayer you do in your own home. So it was with the gift of other languages. Why do you need to speak in a foreign language in your own home. Don't you think God can understand your English???????

Please quote the whole scripture! vs 28 "But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself AND GOD!

And the way you speak to God is in your own language, not in Cree, or Mohawk! Just what language do you think God understands? Is the God you serve only confined to just a few languages? Is he not omniscient, and you cannot communicate with him in your native tongue, that you have to use another??

 

[DHK]

This is not speaking of tongues! How do you reconcile this scripture?
1 Corinthians 11:5: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved."

In those cultures women would at times (and still do) gather together, apart from the men, to pray.
Here is an example:
Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Paul went to the place where the women gathered on a regular basis to pray. When they prayed they would cover their heads. When the church gathered together they would cover their heads and keep silent in the church. Such customs are still kept in eastern nations today.

You leave out parts of scripture that does not agree with your theories!

I left out the Scripture this time because I just listed all the reasons either why tongues were given just for the first century, or why tongues are not for today. I have already explained all of this before with Scripture. But here it is:

1 Corinthians 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
--This is a prophecy from Isa.28:11,12. Paul is referring to it now because it is just being fulfilled now. It is a sign just now to the Jews, that men of other languages will speak to Israel, a strange people--Gentile nations; and when that happens they will still not hear, and thus will go into judgment. And that is what happened. Judgment came in 70 A.D.

Wrong! Others spoke in tongues not just the apostles.

That doesn't matter. Tongues was one of many gifts of the Spirit that was given to the Apostles. They had more than one gift; tongues was just one of them. Otherwise you are simply denying the Word of God here. Does 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4 mean nothing to you?

You have yet to show me where tongues are used to reveal. What are they to reveal? THey are speaking to God. Magnifying and praising God (Acts 2 and 10), speaking to God (1 Cor. 14)

Tongues is one of three specific revelatory gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8 (prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge). All three of these would cease near the end of the first century with the completion of the NT, when these different modes of partial revelation was no longer needed.
Prophecy is fairly self-explanatory. It was not always fore-telling but sometimes forth-telling just like a preacher does. Think of the work of John the Baptist. He was a prophet.
Tongues with interpretation was very much like that gift of prophecy and edified the church in the same way. Without the interpretation it was useless.
Knowledge wasn't common knowledge but revelatory knowledge given by God to some of the wiser individuals in the church. These were three supernatural gifts that would only last for a short period of time and then pass away--when that which is complete would come--the Word of God. And it was complete just before the end of the first century. History tells us that tongues were finished before that time as well. History and the Bible are in harmony at this point.

So you back your doctrine on history and not the Bible? THe Bible is clear when the work of the Holy Spirit will end! As long as the church is here on earth the Holy Spirit will be here! We are not to quench the work of the Holy Spirit! We are not to deny the Power of the Holy Spirit!

No, I am saying that you are accusing 19 centuries of Godly Christians as being unspiritual. That is really shameful. It is sad when you can't seem to differentiate between the gift of tongues and the operation of the Holy Spirit. You are so confused.

Where did Paul say he would rather speak that? In church! But he also said he spoke in tongue more than anyone!! Maybe that is because speaking in tongues is speaking to God!

1 Corinthians 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
It wasn't very important to him was it?
He spoke in tongues more than them all because he established over 100 churches in different nations that spoke different languages. Corinth was in Greece. Greek was the universal language of the day. They were the least city in the world to need the gift of tongues.

Your point?

I had said:

11. Read 1Cor.12:28. All the gifts are listed in order of importance and tongues are listed last, as the least important of all the gifts. It was not one of the more important gifts.

Why do you and the other Charismatics place the most importance on the gift that Paul placed the least importance. You have your priorities in the wrong place.

Who is seeking tongues?

You not only seek to speak them, you do speak them. Not only do you speak them, you advocate others to speak them, and that openly on this forum.

Sinful? He said in 14:1 to desire spiritual gifts especially prophesy. I agree with scriptures not all are called to speak in tongues AT CHURH.

At the church, in Corinth, during the first century, when there are unbelieving Jews present, when the canon of Scripture is not yet completed, when you are absolutely sure you have an interpreter for the language you are speaking (and it is a known language), as long as it is not a woman speaking in tongues, etc.
I really don't think you can adhere to all that. In fact we both know it is impossible. Therefore it is sin.

When do you believe you can manifest the Holy Spirit?

I said:
14. Nowhere is the gift of tongues directly connected with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. These are two separate events and doctrines.

Your answer makes no sense in light of the above statement.

But I did! and I have through this whole thread...you just ignore the scriptures that I post!

I haven't ignored a thing. I have noted how you have misused Scripture, misunderstood it, and abused it.

But God knows what is said because it is the Holy Spirit that gives the utterance (Acts 2:4)

Pentecost is over. He never promised you that he would give you "utterance" to speak in tongues. See how you misuse Scripture.

YOu have proven nothing with your post except why you are in unbelief about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Without faith we can not please God! If you do not believe what the scriptures say you will not manifest what the word says that you can.

I am in unbelief about many things.
I don't believe that God is going to speak to me through a burning bush.
I don't believe that I will raise an axe-head from the bottom of a river.
I don't believe that I will part the waters of the Red Sea.
I don't believe that I will walk on water like Peter did.

I am in unbelief about many things, and that is not a bad thing.
That unbelief is firmly anchored in the Word of God
The Word of Faith movement which you seem to believe in says that you must put faith in your faith. You keep saying to have faith.
I do.
I have faith in Christ, and faith in His word.
Christ reveals himself through the Word of God, as he promised.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

You are seeking a mystical religion based in your experiences and not rooted in the Word of God, but rather grounded in your own experiences. It is esoteric metaphysical and existential. There is a way that seems right unto a man but the end thereof is death.

 

[awaken]

My statement was: There is no such thing as private prayer prayer language taught in the Bible. In the light of that statement how do your answers hold up?

I just gave you scripture!

They were not praying. There is no one on this board that will agree with you on this point. The verb used is lelew which means speaking, saying, telling and even preaching. But it does not mean "praying." They were speaking forth the praises of God. They were not praying!

Speaking to God is prayer!! I do not have to have the approval of this board (man) to believe the Bible!

Give chapter and verse and demonstrate that they were praying privately in tongues. Nowhere does the Bible give any evidence of that.
No it does not. It is speaking about being in the church, being in public, speaking with understanding, not a private prayer language.

speaking to God is prayer! If youare instructed to speak to yourself and God...that is private!

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.
--There is not one word of praying here. That is your imagination. You are twisting the Scriptures. The one who is speaking in another language does not speak to men because men cannot understand him. He speaks to God for God can understand other languages. But as for today's modern-day tongue phenomena, God can't even understand that! It isn't a language of any sort. It is unintelligible. It is not Biblical. You admit that you don't understand it, and can't find out the language you speak in.

Well, at least you admitted it was speaking to God! THAT IS PRAYER!!

He is speaking in the church. He prays publicly aloud in the church.
These two verses go together and don't make sense read apart:

1 Corinthians 14:13 Therefore let him who speaks in another language pray that he may interpret.
14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful.
--If you are going to speak in another language pray for the gift of interpretation (if you don't have one). Why? Because if you pray in another language your human spirit may pray but mind is unfruitful. What a useless exercise this is. He was condemning it.

THe only condemnation in 1 Cor. about tongues is it is done in the church without interpretation! Otherwise you it will contradict "forbid not to speak in tongues"

Then he says if you are going to speak in tongues speak with an interpreter, and if you don't have an interpreter, then SHUT UP!!!!

You seem to be good about leaving out the part of scriptures that does not agree with your theory! speak between you AND GOD! that is silent prayer! But in the church be quiet UNLESS you interprete!!

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.
--First everything that Paul says in this verse is for the church.
Therefore everything Paul says is not private but public.
"In the spirit" is used for public singing as much as it is for public praying. There is still nothing here about a private prayer language.

But it is not forbidden! If Paul does not speak in church...then maybe it is private! But Paul does speak in tongues and it is not to preach!

1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God.
If there is no interpreter then shut up. Speak to God.

Wow! I am glad Paul showed more love in his discipline! AT least your are at least admitting that we are to speak to God! THAT IS PRAYER!

IOW, there is no such thing as a private prayer language--nowhere taught in the Bible. It isn't there. You have not given a single verse to demonstrate this.

You even admitted that it was speaking to God! So where in scripture does it forbid speaking to God in private?

I said:

2. All spiritual gifts mentioned in 1Cor.12 were supernatural and given to first century churches, given only to first century churches, for the revelation of God was not yet complete.

It is not opinion it is fact. It is based on Scripture.

No it is not! It is based on man's interpretation of scripture! 1 Cor. does not teach the completion of the Bible will take away the Holy Spirit and His manifestations!

You won't even examine the Scripture. As I said in my quote you won't and can't refute these truths with Scripture. I can give you plenty, but here is one:

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.
--The gifts were given to the church. It says so right there. How can you deny that?
Everytime "church" is used in the NT it means "assembly." So, yes it is limited to the assembly, the local church, and not to be used outside of it. That is the gifts of the Holy Spirit are to be used wherever the church gathers. When prayer is given to the local church it is for public prayer, not private. Private prayer you do in your own home. So it was with the gift of other languages. Why do you need to speak in a foreign language in your own home. Don't you think God can understand your English???????

But I do not know the perfect will of God for a personal situation. If I am praying for you to get a certain job. How am I to know that God wants you to have that certain job? I do not! But the Holy Spirit does! If He choose to give me a word of knowledge in my understanding...then I will pray that in English. Otherwise I will pray in the spirit because HE knows the perfect will of God.

ONCE AGAIN...they were given to the church! THe church is still here! THey are ALL needed today!

Question...with your above reasoning...Are we not allowed to teach the word of God outside the church? Are we not allowed to pray for healing outside the church? Are we not allowed to help in any ministry outside the church? This is common sense! NOWHERE does it say that we can not pray outside the church!!

And the way you speak to God is in your own language, not in Cree, or Mohawk! Just what language do you think God understands? Is the God you serve only confined to just a few languages? Is he not omniscient, and you cannot communicate with him in your native tongue, that you have to use another??

I have explained this over and over!! It is the Holy Spirit giving the utterance! Why would I deny the Holy Spirit praying the perfect will of God, things I do not know but He does?

 

[DHK]

I have explained this over and over!! It is the Holy Spirit giving the utterance! Why would I deny the Holy Spirit praying the perfect will of God, things I do not know but He does?

Because prayer is communication. If you don't know what you are praying there is no communication with God. Maybe you are praying that Satan will praise God. You don't know that for sure because you have no understanding. In fact you are only going by your emotions. You have no guarantee that it is even the Holy Spirit aiding you. He could be a counterfeit. How do you know? You have no understanding.

 

[awaken]

Because prayer is communication. If you don't know what you are praying there is no communication with God. Maybe you are praying that Satan will praise God. You don't know that for sure because you have no understanding. In fact you are only going by your emotions. You have no guarantee that it is even the Holy Spirit aiding you. He could be a counterfeit. How do you know? You have no understanding.

So if the disciples on the day of Pentecost thought this way... would they have opened their mouth? Would the rest of those that received spoke? They would be saying, " Oh, my! I need to stop this I could be speaking demonic things!"

Your reasoning is unprofitable!

 

[Don]

So if the disciples on the day of Pentecost thought this way... would they have opened their mouth? Would the rest of those that received spoke? They would be saying, " Oh, my! I need to stop this I could be speaking demonic things!"

Your reasoning is unprofitable!

Your example is invalid, because the disciples on the day of Pentecost were interpreted by those that heard them; the understanding was made evident by the scripture that says those that heard them said they heard them speaking in their own tongues, magnifying God.

It is when there is no understanding that things become as a sounding horn or tinkling brass--in other words, unprofitable.

 

[awaken]

Your example is invalid, because the disciples on the day of Pentecost were interpreted by those that heard them; the understanding was made evident by the scripture that says those that heard them said they heard them speaking in their own tongues, magnifying God.

It is when there is no understanding that things become as a sounding horn or tinkling brass--in other words, unprofitable.

But the ones speaking did not know what they were speaking! That is the point!

In Acts 10 and 19 no interpreters were mentioned.

 

[awaken]

In those cultures women would at times (and still do) gather together, apart from the men, to pray.
Here is an example:
Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Paul went to the place where the women gathered on a regular basis to pray. When they prayed they would cover their heads. When the church gathered together they would cover their heads and keep silent in the church. Such customs are still kept in eastern nations today.

I will address this and the rest later...
Paul said that women should be "covered" when they pray or prophesy, which refers to public prayer or public prophesying in church (according to many Bible commentaries). In 1 Corinthians 11:16-18, Paul specifically placed his instructions in the context of church meetings, which demonstrates that women are allowed to pray and prophesy out loud in church.

 

[Don]

I really meant to stay out of this...but I have to comment. The point DHK is making is about your individual praying by yourself.

But the ones speaking did not know what they were speaking! That is the point!

The disciples in Acts 2 may or may not have known what they were saying; scripture doesn't say either way. To say definitively, without doubt, that they didn't know what they were speaking, is to inject into scripture. It's entirely possible that the speakers knew they were praising God, but the hearers heard them in their own languages.

God used that particular moment to ensure the hearers heard them in their own languages, and told everyone around them they heard them in their own languages magnifying God. The same cannot be said for praying by yourself.

In Acts 10 and 19 no interpreters were mentioned.

In Acts 10 and 19, why did scripture mention that they spoke in tongues, but didn't emphasize whether it was the same exact type of experience as in Acts 2? Or that they were interpreted? Or anything else about the tongues?
Answer: Because the emphasis of the scripture, especially in those passages, is NOT on speaking in tongues. In Acts 10 the emphasis was on showing the Jews that the Gentiles were God's children, too. In Acts 19, the emphasis was about those that followed the teachings of John the Baptist needing to hear about and follow Jesus.

THIS, my friend, is the #1 problem with the defense of speaking in tongues. People take these passages and use them as a defense for the gift, while not placing the gift in its proper importance with regards to the passage. The speaking of tongues was not the main point of these passages.

Secondly, there is a rule of "first use." It doesn't apply to all situations, but can be generally applied to most. It basically goes along the lines of, the first time I identify something to you, each time I reference it afterwards is based on the first time I identified it to you. For example, if I tell you a story about me riding a bicycle, the first time I reference the bicycle, I might tell you that it's a 10-speed, dark blue, with a water bottle holder on the frame. Each time I reference the bicycle after that, I assume that you'll understand that I'm talking about the same exact bicycle.

In this case, the "first use" of tongues was specifically described in Acts 2. If we agree that the same author wrote the rest of Acts, then it's plausible that the author didn't go into detail of describing each use of the gift of tongues because he'd already described it, and assumed that we'd understand that he was talking about the same exact use of the gift.

 

[awaken]

That doesn't matter. Tongues was one of many gifts of the Spirit that was given to the Apostles. They had more than one gift; tongues was just one of them. Otherwise you are simply denying the Word of God here. Does 2Cor.12:12 and Heb.2:3,4 mean nothing to you?

THey WERE NOT just for the Apostles!! I have never denied there were more! I listed them!

 

[awaken]

I really meant to stay out of this...but I have to comment. The point DHK is making is about your individual praying by yourself.


The disciples in Acts 2 may or may not have known what they were saying; scripture doesn't say either way. To say definitively, without doubt, that they didn't know what they were speaking, is to inject into scripture. It's entirely possible that the speakers knew they were praising God, but the hearers heard them in their own languages.

God used that particular moment to ensure the hearers heard them in their own languages, and told everyone around them they heard them in their own languages magnifying God. The same cannot be said for praying by yourself.

In Acts 10 and 19, why did scripture mention that they spoke in tongues, but didn't emphasize whether it was the same exact type of experience as in Acts 2? Or that they were interpreted? Or anything else about the tongues?
Answer: Because the emphasis of the scripture, especially in those passages, is NOT on speaking in tongues. In Acts 10 the emphasis was on showing the Jews that the Gentiles were God's children, too. In Acts 19, the emphasis was about those that followed the teachings of John the Baptist needing to hear about and follow Jesus.

THIS, my friend, is the #1 problem with the defense of speaking in tongues. People take these passages and use them as a defense for the gift, while not placing the gift in its proper importance with regards to the passage. The speaking of tongues was not the main point of these passages.

Secondly, there is a rule of "first use." It doesn't apply to all situations, but can be generally applied to most. It basically goes along the lines of, the first time I identify something to you, each time I reference it afterwards is based on the first time I identified it to you. For example, if I tell you a story about me riding a bicycle, the first time I reference the bicycle, I might tell you that it's a 10-speed, dark blue, with a water bottle holder on the frame. Each time I reference the bicycle after that, I assume that you'll understand that I'm talking about the same exact bicycle.

In this case, the "first use" of tongues was specifically described in Acts 2. If we agree that the same author wrote the rest of Acts, then it's plausible that the author didn't go into detail of describing each use of the gift of tongues because he'd already described it, and assumed that we'd understand that he was talking about the same exact use of the gift.

And that same exact gift was talking to God each time!

Your assumption of them understanding what they were saying contradicts 1 Cor. 14!

 

[awaken]

Tongues is one of three specific revelatory gifts mentioned in 1Cor.13:8 (prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge). All three of these would cease near the end of the first century with the completion of the NT, when these different modes of partial revelation was no longer needed.

No! you still have not proven those gifts have ceased!

I am answering these in segments because I am on and off my computer today!

 

[DHK]

THey WERE NOT just for the Apostles!! I have never denied there were more! I listed them!

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?

The gifts of the Holy Spirit, collectively, were given to the Apostles as a sign that they were apostles. They performed miracles like Christ did, though to a lesser extent, but to a far greater extent than any of the believers in the church at Corinth or any of the believers in any other church.

What other believer, for example, could follow in the Apostle Peter's footsteps:

Acts 5:12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.
--The signs and wonders (including tongues) were given specifically to the Apostles to authenticate both them and their message.

Acts 5:15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

There are many frauds in this world today, but there is no one alive today that can do what Peter did here.
The true Biblical gifts of miracles, healings, and tongues have ceased. They are gifts, supernatural gifts which cannot and have not been replicated in this day and generation.

You tacitly admit that for you don't even understand what you say. It could be of the devil and you wouldn't know it.

 

[DHK]

And that same exact gift was talking to God each time!

Your assumption of them understanding what they were saying contradicts 1 Cor. 14!

You are totally wrong and don't understand the Scriptures. They were not talking to God. Paul demanded an interpreter. Why? Because the gift of tongues was likened to prophecy, likened to the ministry of John the Baptist. That is not prayer at all. It is preaching. It is for the benefit of others. It is telling them that they have sinned and they need to get right with God. It is preaching forth the word of God but in another language. That is all that speaking in tongues (another language) is. It is not prayer.

 

[DHK]

I will address this and the rest later...
Paul said that women should be "covered" when they pray or prophesy, which refers to public prayer or public prophesying in church (according to many Bible commentaries). In 1 Corinthians 11:16-18, Paul specifically placed his instructions in the context of church meetings, which demonstrates that women are allowed to pray and prophesy out loud in church.

You can deny the Word of God all you like. But you cannot explain away these verses. In fact you cannot explain them at all can you?

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

They seem fairly clear to me.
Sit down and shut up!