For those who speak in tongues...

[atestring]

John Maxrthur is often quoted by Church of Christ Mnisters.
If you get on a search engine and type in "JOhn Mcarthur" + "Church of Christ " you will find that he is highly regarded by Church of Christ ministers.
He Pastors Grace Community Church which labels itelf as nondenomintional. the Church of Christ would claim to be nondenminational also.
Macarthurs Background is a traveling speaker for Talbot Theological Seminary which is a part of Biola University. The doctrinal Statement of Biola and Talbot would differ somewhat from Macarthur. the Church of Christ would have a closer doctrinal statement to macarthur than Biola and Talbot would in my opinion.

 

[atestring]

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

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

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

On number one of your quote :
If according to your previous post, gifts of the Spirit are labeled in importance according to the order that they are listed, then interpetation of tongues would be less important than tongues since interpretation of tongues is listed last.
That is if you interpet the scripture to but importance according to the number in a list.

 

[tamborine lady]

Thanks Atestring, that explanation was very good about Macarthur. Also, some of the COC are changing their names, as evidenced in the following article.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/003/36.62.html

(This is about Max Lucado, but does NOT promote his ministry). In the first 2 or 3 paragraphes, it is explained why they changed the name of their church. Others are doing it too.

Tam

 

[Link]

Briguy wrote,
**As DHK already said Paul is clear in 1 Cor 12 that not all have the same gift so there is no way he could wish seriously that all people had the gift of tongues. He was simply making a point for Emphasis.***


That seems like a plausible explanation. However, DHK was taking the verse to mean the opposite, that Paul did want them to speak in tongues when he said that he did. Whether this is hyperbole or not, Paul is being positive about tongues.

And it makes sense that Paul might wish a good thing for people, even if he knew it would not be possible. But if he thought speaking in tongues were a bad thing, then it does not make sense that he would wish it on people that he loved. And it makes even less sense that speaking in tongues would be a gift of the Spirit to the church if it were a bad, immature thing to do.

 

[D28guy]

Hello all,

D28guy here. I havent lost interest or abandoned this thread. I've moved from one city to another and cant get the high speed DSL I've signed up for to work with my computer.

A computer geek from the cable company is coming out Monday to get it working for this computer know-nothing.

Jamie,

Very glad that this thread has been a benefit for you. God bless you!

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by atestring:
On number one of your quote :
If according to your previous post, gifts of the Spirit are labeled in importance according to the order that they are listed, then interpetation of tongues would be less important than tongues since interpretation of tongues is listed last.
That is if you interpet the scripture to but importance according to the number in a list.

Quite true. There would be no need of interpretation if there were no tongues. It only makes sense doesn't it. Tongues, and the interpretation thereof, were the two gifts that were at the bottom of the list that Paul gives.
Notice the adverbs given: First, Secondarily, after that, then...
DHK

 

[Link]

DHK

I can see why someone would see tongues as low in that list of gifts. But it is still a good thing. I Corinthians 12 even teaches that the parts that seem unimportant receive special honor. We all need one another in the body. If tongues were a bad thing, God would not give it to the church as a gift.

But nowhere does the Bible teach that tongues is the least of the gifts. Tongues and interpretation are on the bottom of that particular list. But since there are other lists of gifts, that don't mention tongues, we know there are gifts that are not mentioned in that list. And the Bible does not tell us how all those gifts rank in relation to tongues. Nor does the Bible tell us that all of the gifts are specifically enumerated in scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Link:
DHK

I can see why someone would see tongues as low in that list of gifts. But it is still a good thing. I Corinthians 12 even teaches that the parts that seem unimportant receive special honor. We all need one another in the body. If tongues were a bad thing, God would not give it to the church as a gift.

But nowhere does the Bible teach that tongues is the least of the gifts. Tongues and interpretation are on the bottom of that particular list. But since there are other lists of gifts, that don't mention tongues, we know there are gifts that are not mentioned in that list. And the Bible does not tell us how all those gifts rank in relation to tongues. Nor does the Bible tell us that all of the gifts are specifically enumerated in scripture.

1 Corinthians 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

You are mis-using that passage of Scripture. There was an abuse of the gift of tongues at Corinth. Paul was correcting that. It is apparent that this showy gift was one that was coveted after by many in the church (not just a few). It was one that was esteemed with honor, though in reality Paul said it was one of the lesser gifts. Remember he is speaking to a carnal church that he was still feeding milk and could not take the meat of the Word (1Cor.3:1-3).

They all wanted tongues, not because of the status Paul gave it, but because it was a proud, carnal, show-off "spiritual" so-called type of gift to have.

What Paul refers to as "more feeble" or less honorable, are perhaps the gift of helps--the behind the scenes gifts that no one sees, much less gives credit for. It is one thing to stand in front of everyone, or in the midst of everyone and show "how spiritual you are," and quite another just to go and do good works--visiting the sick, the poor, comforting the bereaved, etc. Some had a gift of helps. But they wouldn't be looked up to as "spiritual" as those that could supernaturally (and carnally) speak a "foreign" language.
DHK

 

[music4Him]

Something that has always been a witness to me as to the gifts of the Spirit and today times. When Paul wrote 1 Cor. 12 he introduces the nine gifts of the Spirit and then speaks of the church/body..........
Question here: If tongues were suppost to cease in the 1st century, or interpretaion, or healing, or working of miricals. Would'nt the body be lacking and no longer whole according to what Paul says about the body in 1 Cor. 12?

 

[D28guy]

Well I'm back on the internet at my new home now. For the past few days I've been going to the library to access the internet and was pleasantly surprised to discover that you get one hour at this cities library! Yeeee Haaaaa! Every place else I've used you only get 1/2 hour.

I'll find the previous response to me from way back and respond...unless its too much "old news". If thats the case I'll just jump in somewhere.

Mike

 

[Link]

DHK wrote,
***
They all wanted tongues, not because of the status Paul gave it, but because it was a proud, carnal, show-off "spiritual" so-called type of gift to have. **


You are eisegeting here. Paul never connects the Corinthian pride problem to their use of tongues. He does indicate that they were being childish in their understanding. He explained to them that tongues without interpretation did not edify the congregation and that everything in the church was to be done unto edification. They apparently had a problem of a lack of understanding.

I have asked you for this many times before: Can you show any indication they wanted tongues because it was a showy gift? I cannot find that in I Corinthians.

 

[music4Him]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Well I'm back on the internet at my new home now. For the past few days I've been going to the library to access the internet and was pleasantly surprised to discover that you get one hour at this cities library! Yeeee Haaaaa! Every place else I've used you only get 1/2 hour.

I'll find the previous response to me from way back and respond...unless its too much "old news". If thats the case I'll just jump in somewhere.

Mike

Glad your back Mike~

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Link:
I have asked you for this many times before: Can you show any indication they wanted tongues because it was a showy gift? I cannot find that in I Corinthians.

Then you are not reading my posts; neither do I consider comparing Scripture with Scipture with--as you say--eisigesis. It is a sound Bible study hermeneutic.
DHK

 

[Link]

DHK,

That does not change the fact that I Corinthians 12-14 does not attribute the Corinthians speaking in tongues to their pride or a desire to get attention. You are reading that into the passage.

The Corinthians apparently did not understand that meeting were for edification, and that tongues needed to be interpreted to edify the church. Paul warned them against being childish in their understanding in I Corinthians 14, in the midst of his explanation that tongues needed to be interpreted and that all things needed to be done unto edifying.

20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Paul does not say they spoke in tongues to get attention or to be prideful. He does say that the one speaking in tongues edifies himself. But edifying is a good thing, building up, not a bad thing.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Link:
I Corinthians 14, in the midst of his explanation that tongues needed to be interpreted and that all things needed to be done unto edifying.

20. Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

Paul does not say they spoke in tongues to get attention or to be prideful. He does say that the one speaking in tongues edifies himself. But edifying is a good thing, building up, not a bad thing.

In a church where the spiritual gifts were given only to the church self-edification was very selfish, and in fact unbiblical. That is why prayer in tongues is unbliblical; tongues for private use is unbliblical. They were gifts given to the church--not individuals! And many of the Corinthians were abusing these gifts.
DHK

 

[music4Him]

Something that has always been a witness to me as to the gifts of the Spirit and today times. When Paul wrote 1 Cor. 12 he introduces the nine gifts of the Spirit and then speaks of the church/body..........
Question here: If tongues were suppost to cease in the 1st century, or interpretaion, or healing, or working of miricals. Would'nt the body be lacking and no longer whole according to what Paul says about the body in 1 Cor. 12?

 

[atestring]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by atestring:
On number one of your quote :
If according to your previous post, gifts of the Spirit are labeled in importance according to the order that they are listed, then interpetation of tongues would be less important than tongues since interpretation of tongues is listed last.
That is if you interpet the scripture to but importance according to the number in a list.

Quite true. There would be no need of interpretation if there were no tongues. It only makes sense doesn't it. Tongues, and the interpretation thereof, were the two gifts that were at the bottom of the list that Paul gives.
Notice the adverbs given: First, Secondarily, after that, then...
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]I take it you believe that Word of wisdom (not just wisdom but a word of wisdom) and words of knowledge (notice not just knowledge but a word of knowledge) are the most important gifts.
My guess is that you have a problem with these also.
They are not even mentioned in ICor 12:28.
BTw what gifts of the Spirit do you believe in?

 

[D28guy]

DHK,

You said...

"In a church where the spiritual gifts were given only to the church self-edification was very selfish, and in fact unbiblical. That is why prayer in tongues is unbliblical; tongues for private use is unbliblical. They were gifts given to the church--not individuals! And many of the Corinthians were abusing these gifts."

What you are saying is completly different than what Paul and the scriptures are saying.

Here it is again for the umpteenth time...

(maybe this time it will take)

"14:15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding."

You are saying that Paul and the scriptures are condeming a personal prayer language for personal edification, and only advocating tongues when interpreted for the body. Paul is clearly...CLEARLY...saying both are fine:

"14:15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding."

He is saying he will do both.

He goes on...


"14:16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?

He says that interpreted tongues, or a message in the native language is better for body edification. We all acknowledge that.

But keep reading...

"14:17 For you indeed give thanks well, but the other is not edified."

DHK, my brother...how can he make it any clearer!

He says it point blank:

Even though the other is not edified by uninterpreted tongues...you still GIVE THANKS WELL!

14:18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;"

Paul...and the scriptures...are not down on the other forms of tongues. How can he be condemning it when he says they are "giving thanks well"...and Paul admits that he himself participates in the one(praying with the understanding) and ALSO the other(praying in the spirit)?

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[Briguy]

Hi Mike, I just have a second. Do you realize that the word "spirit" has different meanings? It is is a small "s" and is not referring to the Holy Spirit, that is clear. The word in Greek means "breath" and can even mean "inner self" (kind of the deep within idea). Anyway, think of the verse saying using breath and it gives some light to what DHK and I have been saying. Paul is saying that I will pray with my breath and with my brain. The two work together. To waste breath without the understanding is of no use to anyone, not the speaker or the hearer. If a Chinese speaking missionary comes to my church and tells us about his work in China and speaks in Chinese it will mean nothing to those in my church because there will be no understanding. If the person was speaking in gibberish or even in a real language that even he did not understand not even the speaker wuld be edified. That is the point with a gift all involved need to be edified because the gift is for the "body". Paul says if he is going to take the time to use his breath he will speak with understanding for all.

Mike, i know you think we are dense and are missing the point but we are seeing the verse differently then you.

As for givest thanks well. Probably referring to the real gift at that point and the fact that in a real language you may have said good things but those things mean nothing if no one understands what was said. I think these verses are actually more simple then we tend to make them.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[tamborine lady]

It's unbelievable to me that after reading scripture and seeing it plainly explained in detail, it can just be swept away with no understanding!!

Brian, PLEASE wake up and smell the coffee!!

Selah,
Tam