Featured praying = speaking to God

These were 3,000 Jews saved on the Day of Pentecost. There were still approximately 100,000 Jews there. Do you still call that a church?? They were speaking in tongues on the Day of Pentecost, not in a church. Now if we are all going to agree that it is a gift given to the church, then don't ever bring up the Day of Pentecost again. Settled? Or deal with the text in context, now, and don't dismiss it!

Peter was preaching to about 100,00 Jews in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost. Before that, before anyone had gotten saved, they spoke, that is spoke in tongues. It was for those that were there--their benefit.
Tell me:
Psalms 103:2 Bless the LORD, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits:
--What do you think of this verse?
Is the Psalmist praying? If so, what is he praying about?

Most commentaries will tell you that he is not necessarily praying. This is not directed to God. He is directing this thanksgiving to himself. It is no different than what was happening in Acts 2. The magnification of God, or his glories are not necessarily prayers to God. There is no indication that there was any praying going on. You are reading into Scripture that which isn't there.
People do that a lot around here. Ask the RCC. That is how they get infant baptism out of the jailor's household. They read into the passage that which isn't there. You do the same thing.

No, they are separate. One can magnify God without praying.

 

You are demonstrating that you are not very knowledgeable about this subject even though you think you have this gift.
Look at 1Cor.14:14 in another translation with better clarity.

1 Corinthians 14:14 For if I pray in another language, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. WEB
--If you prayed in Hebrew, your human spirit would be praying, but your understanding would be unfruitful. Therefore don't do it.
Why are you trying to take this forceful rebuke and use it as a permission and to speak in tongues. This is a perversion of Scriptures. If the understanding is not there don't do it!!!!!!
That is what Paul said. It doesn't matter where you are. If there is no understanding, don't do it!

Good! You need to give up your practice then. All tongues were in known languages. What is yours?

Go to a typical service. Paul would enter a synagogue. Perhaps he would be in Spain. We believe he eventually reached there. He would open in prayer. He would expound the Scriptures. He would close in prayer. Everything is audible. Everything is for the edification of others. God gave him the tongue or language to do so. If he had no interpreter, he would interpret again for the sake of the Jews. There was no silent prayer or private prayer language. Paul spoke in tongues more than them all because he was a missionary. Tongues was not used for prayer (silently). It was used for edification, and therefore preaching and prophesying. This is made plain by the same scripture you have been using. If there is no understanding then shut up!!

No they weren't. And they weren't praying either. You are placing an either/or dichotomy when there doesn't have to be one. There are other choices.

You still need to provide Scripture that demonstrates tongues can be used as a private prayer language. You don't have any. You say verse 28??

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. WEB
--There is no mention of tongues in the verse. None.

They were given to those in the church as long as they had and/or fulfilled their purpose. Once their purposes were fulfilled they ceased.
1. They were signs of the apostles. Apostles dead; signs dead.
2. They were signs for the first century Jews. Jews dead; signs dead.
3. They were temporary as vehicles for revelation until the Word of God was complete. The word of God is complete. The gifts have ceased. They were in the church in the first century; they are not needed anymore; they have fulfilled their purposes.

We have the Bible printed in almost every language of the world. We don't need tongues. We have the capabilities of studying foreign languages as William Carey demonstrated. The gift of tongues has ceased. There is no example of anyone praying privately in a special prayer language. No one has ever done that in the Bible. You have misinterpreted the Bible to come up with that fad. It doesn't edify anyone. Paul says it doesn't. It has no understanding.

Not even God understands Gibberish. They are nonsense syllables run together with no meaning. What is there to understand? It is not the Holy Spirit that gives you utterance either.

Acts 2:4 They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other languages, as the Spirit gave them the ability to speak.
--You weren't even there, first of all.
Secondly, if the Holy Spirit has given you the ability to speak other languages, then what are the languages that you are now able to speak. You would know about it!

Acts 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.
--You would know about it, wouldn't you?

First, prove that Paul was not in a church, and not preaching when he spoke in tongues. You are just putting opinion on your plate, and it is unscriptural.
Secondly, I have proved to you that the gifts were confined to the first century solely by their purpose.
Thirdly, Paul puts little emphasis on tongues as he would rather speak 10,000 words with understanding (in his own language), then just 5 words in tongues (without understanding).
The message is don't speak in tongues.

 

Acts 2:6 When this sound was heard, the multitude came together, and were bewildered, because everyone heard them speaking in his own language.

The setting:
They were in the Temple. That doesn't mean they were all assembled, for the Temple was quite large. It had a very large outer court where Gentiles were permitted as well. In some room in that large temple area these 120 were gathered. When they started to speak in tongues all those gathered in that larger court heard them and came closer--"the multitude came together."

It obviously wasn't a church. It was a Jewish feast day, and they were in a Jewish building called the Temple. Much later on, after the 3,000 were saved and then baptized they would be organized into a church. But not at this point.

My point with Psalm 103:2 is the same with those in Acts 2 that spoke in tongues. They weren't praying.

 

The Jewish nation did not respond only a remnant did. Isaiah is talking about the nation of Israel as a whole not a remnant, just as the consequences for rejecting it were not personal but national.

You can't just JUMP into another book and assume that the works they were declaring was something the text does not even provide a word about?

Why didn't you quote "singing" as well? huh? Of course tongues are diverse in use as your own tongue is diverse in use! Any use with your own tongue according to your own dialect can be done with a foreign langauge. Is it proper or right to say that speaking in English is to God only and is a praise language?????!!! No! Tongues can be used by God to speak to men as well as men to speak to other man or to God or to themsleves, or sing, or pray, or preach, or exhort or whatever.

The principle of edification concerning the tongue speaker himself is not restricted within four walls as that is silly!



.

 

What in the world can you find in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 that teaches that?!? Those scripture repudatiate what you believe in the clearest terms possible!

Why are you repeating this utter nonsense? 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and the use of "allos" and "heteros" completely repudiate this nonsense! Paul is flatly denying that the Holy Spirit gives the same gifts to all but rather equips each according to the purpose he has for them in the body and no member can replace the other. In 1 Cor. 12:29-30 he flatly repudiates the idea that God gives "all" share in these ministries or gifts and yet you reverse his language to say the very opposite!

 

The problem is that you have only an order of events without any proof everything listed was confined in the same place. You cannot prove that the speaking in tongues was confined to that place or it was something they were doing as they moved about in the temple. Supposition is all you have!

I do not buld doctrine on supposition but on clear explicit statements. The clear explicit statements in 1 Cor. 12:7-11 and 29-30 completely repudiate your whole position. The clear statement of Isaiah 28:11-15 as quoted and interpreted by Paul in 1 Cor. 14:21-22 repudiates your whole idea that tongues is restricted to speaking only to God and is a praise tongue. Your supposition that "the wonderful works of God" is simply a praise tongue has nothing to support it since the context clearly says the lost Jews understood what was being said and perceived it was a sign of God to them as THREE times they repeat that it could not natural. The fact that Isaiah 28 refers to the NATION and not a remnant and the consequences were NATIONAL and not in regard to any remnant completely void your objections. The fact that 1 Cor. 14:2 says "speaketh" not "prayeth" and that verses 3-12 which is by any man's reasonable conclusion the immediate context of verse 2 which explains why that manner of use of tongues is UNKNOWN to all in the assembly because it is without intepretation to the speaker or hearer and thus God is the only audiance that understands it. The fact that the scriptues clearly state that the mature use of tongues is for a sign to "this people" and not for believers or for self-edification overthrows your entire position.

Finally, the fact that these were all KNOWN HUMAN LANGUAGUES from and only UNKNOWN in a context where it is used improperly completely exposes your kind of tongues as mere ecstatic utterances.

 

Please do not misrepresent my position. You know very well that DHK and I are in perfect agreement when it comes to the use of tongues for a sign to the Jewish nation. There is no scritpure or example for the PERSONAL use of tongues or any other "sign" gift outside of the assembly.

 

- Acts 2:1-6

What known language have you spoken without training and who has confirmed it to be that language besides yourself? Those in Acts 2 were confirmed by native born witnesses. They did not confirm themselves.

 

Q

My oh my, are you that desperate to ask such a question that can be so easily answered to your deficiency?

This is the quintisential text and there it is confirmed three times and written print.

Acts 10 are GENTILES speaking and it was confirmed as tongues by the JEWS present. The last time I checked Gentiles do not speak Aramaic which was the native tongue of these Jews. If these were Dispersion Jews then any number of languages could have been spoken but did not Peter ask who among them could forbid baptism as they RECOGNIZED these GENTILES were speaking known langauges foreign to GENTILES?

Acts 19:6 is joined right to verse 7 I beleive but I could be mistaken! Does not verse 7 mention a synoguoge where lost Jews were attending and was not that Paul's custom in every city he went FIRST to the Jews at the synogue and then to the Gentiles?

In all these cases in the book of Acts there were ALWAYS listeners who were not speaking in foreign dialects but could understand it was foreign dilects and not the COMMON gibberish found in the Gentile Temples, and current world religions and pentecostalism which is nothing but esctatic utterances.

Just as I thought, you do not speak in any foreign dialect whatseover and no one born in any native tongue has every confirmed you have ever spoken in Biblical tongues - period - end of story!

 

Not trying to be harsh on you, but the bottom line is that you really don't know based merely on experience whether your utterances are the common variety type that most Pentecostals blabber and most world religions have always blabbered or it is real KNOWN languages until some one in another language hears and confirms it. You can claim it till your blue in the face and by the way they make the same claim that god is their source of their experience as well.

 

What is your end goal here with all these one horse threads?