Define the angel tongue of I Cor 13

[canadyjd]

Ecstatic utterances did exist. Paul was attempting to limit its use in worship and make worship meaningful to all do that believers were edified. Do a study on the Eleusinian Mysteries and you will see what Paul dealt with.

I know they existed, and I agree Paul was very much concerned with edification within the fellowship.

I think some folks here are taking my argument that Paul essentially left the matter to the Christian's conscience and Christian liberty (as long as the fellowship wasn't being disrupted) as my affirming the validity of "speaking in tongues", which I do not. I understand its background and the way it is understood by charismatics today. My concern is that some believers are attempting to hold other Christians to a higher standard than scripture dictates.

Take a look at:
http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/conditional_sentences.htm
http://www.ntgreek.org/pdf/conditional_sentences.pdf
http://www.chioulaoshi.org/BG/PDFs/Conditionals.pdf

I did, and it was helpful.

peace to youraying:

 

[ajg1959]

I know they existed, and I agree Paul was very much concerned with edification within the fellowship.

I think some folks here are taking my argument that Paul essentially left the matter to the Christian's conscience and Christian liberty (as long as the fellowship wasn't being disrupted) as my affirming the validity of "speaking in tongues", which I do not. I understand its background and the way it is understood by charismatics today. My concern is that some believers are attempting to hold other Christians to a higher standard than scripture dictates.I did, and it was helpful.

peace to youraying:

You keep ranting about a prayer language being a Christian liberty. and according to one's Christian conscience???????

Just what scripture teaches this?

And how are we who dont believe that there is a such thing as a private prayer language "holding the church to a higher standard"?

Its seems to me that the only standard that matters is the standard of God's Word. And I dont see any scripture that cites the things you are saying.

Besides......the charismatics/pentecostals "seek" after tongues. They even hold classes and seminars to "teach" people how to speak in tongues. It seems to me that if God wanted me, as a Christian, to speak in tongues that I would NOT have to "seek" it or ask for it......He would just make it happen like he did with the folks in the book of ACTS.

AJ

 

[canadyjd]

You keep ranting about a prayer language being a Christian liberty. and according to one's Christian conscience???????

Just what scripture teaches this?

The context of I Cor. chapters 12-14 supports the position.

And how are we who dont believe that there is a such thing as a private prayer language "holding the church to a higher standard"?

I didn't say you were "holding the church to a higher standard", I said some believers were holding other Christians than to a higher standard than scripture warrants.

I, personally, don't believe the estatic utterances are genuine communication with God. I, personally, don't believe that the Apostle Paul thought they were genuine communication with God.

But that does not change God's Word on the matter. God has seen fit to give us intructions on how we are to respond to those who are practicing the "estatic utterances".

The Apostle Paul did not prohibit the practice of "tongues" altogether. His concern was that such practices disrupted the church. He conceded the possibility that it was genuine communication with God when he told them "you are giving thanks well enough, but the other man does not understand." He gave instructions for its use, essentially limiting it to private speach between the person and God. That places it in the sphere of Christian Conscience and Christian liberty.

Since the Apostle Paul, under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, wrote these things in God's Holy Word, why do so many refuse to accept what is taught? Why do you think the wisdom of men is better than the wisdom of God.

By this, I am specifically referring to the SBC which is requiring missionaries to sign a document saying they don't practice a "private prayer language".

It also refers to those who tell other Christians that if they practice a "private prayer language" to "go somewhere else, you are not welcome here".

It also refers to those who think they can see into another Christian's mind, heart and spirit and say things like "they know it is contrived and unscriptural....."

Its seems to me that the only standard that matters is the standard of God's Word. And I dont see any scripture that cites the things you are saying.

You are not looking very closely.

peace to youraying:

 

[PK]

I still haven't seen anything here that would prove that "tongues" is anything other than natural languages as stated in Acts 2. I have also found the following article very good.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/pent-charismatic-tongues-vs-bible.html

 

[canadyjd]

I still haven't seen anything here that would prove that "tongues" is anything other than natural languages as stated in Acts 2. I have also found the following article very good.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/pent-charismatic-tongues-vs-bible.html

This is not about determining the validity of tongues. This is about how we respond to those who practice them.

Scripture tells us how to respond to these Christians. We should follow the instructions God has given us.

peace to youraying:

 

[AresMan]

To misunderstand Paul's subjunctive statement as if he practiced and advocated some contrived gift of speaking in some kind of non-earthly "angelic tongue" rather than that he was uttering conjecture and hyperbole would require appropriation of the rest of the entire subjunctive statement in the first three verses, including that Paul

(1) had no charity,
(2) was become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal,
(3) understood all mysteries and all knowledge,
(4) had all faith giving him the power to remove mountains,
(5) bestowed all his goods to feed the poor, and
(6) gave his body to be burned.

It is clear that I Cor. 13:1-3 were in the subjunctive mood and included hyperbole to emphasize the importance of charity. His use of first person did not imply that he had these abilities (nor that anyone else could); but that even if one were to have them, if he did not have charity, they would all be worthless.

Also, in v.8, he continues to emphasize the importance of charity: that it will never go away, but prophecies, tongues, and knowledge by divine revelation will cease.
In v.9, Paul demonstrates that the first three verses were hyperbole, because he says that he knows in part and prophesies in part. He also didn't say that he actually spoke in "angelic tongues" that are not spoken on earth.

 

[JerryL]

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/17%20Reasons/17reasons02.htm