Questioning Modern Pentecostalism

Or Swahili for that matter. The reason: to the the one who doesn't know the language, its the same as gibbersish to them. The key is that whatever language it is, it is spoken by the power of the HS.

No, the interpreter is not one who understands the foreign language (any more than they understand gibberish), but one who is empowered by the HS to interpret whatever is said regardless of the actual language used.

My point is that a foreign language that no one in the congregation knows fulfills these parameters as well as gibberish.

 

I respect your right to differ. The text dealing with Tongues is a know language and we are sure of it because that is what it says. It is not a guessing game. They hear in their own language. Or I will speak to these in the language of another people.

No ambiguity in that.

 

If you can speak with the tongues of men and of angels then you must also believe a person can have all understanding all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains...
Boy, THAT would help solve the C?A debate. We could go to that person or people and be able to know what the bible means and how it is actually meant to be understood by God. Wait, is that what Jesus is about?

The usage here is metaphorical dispaying NOT that we can speak in different languages of men and angels but that those things which are impossible for men to do and have, EVEN if they COULD do and have are worthless if not done in a selfless and non-self-centered way.

12:7 shows the purpose of ALL the spiritual gifts given and that is to edify everyone. Meaning it is for others and NOT for self edification.

Have you ever wondered why 13 (the Love chapter) is in between Paul speaking about gifts given to the people for the CHURCH. The answer is in 13. Love is not selfish but gives, it is not about self but others. Chapter 13 is the epitimy of of what Paul was trying to get across in 12:7 and in 14. This is why 14 is known as a rebuke NOT AGAINST tongues but against the fact it was used for self edification. They spoke to themselves but Paul rathered they prophesied! All Pauls speaking in the church was to grow them - Love - by using his gifts for them. Gifts are not and never were designed for you but to be given and used for and toward His Church. I have a very lengthy discourse on this subject and this is but a small rendering though hopefully you get the gist.

Did it ever occur to you beyond the teaching of Benny Hinn (who says the same thing) those people thought the Jews were drunk because they were talking about a dead man coming back to life and that through Him salvation is assured. That He went up to heaven and is coming again. Scripture doesn't say the staggered around like a drunk or slurred speak like a drunk, but the people call them drunk after hearing their message!!

No it doesn't. Paul states that if ANYONE speaks in an tongue let him pray that he may interprets. (Why would paul ask them pray unless it be Gods will they understand what they say. If you notice Paul uses himself as the example since he does do it with KNOWING what he is saying) Paul would NOT speak unless he understood the language he was speaking. Else if you pray in the spirit how shall the one sitting beside you say 'Amen".

I do disagree. Angels spoke always in the language of men. What is the purpose of speaking in the tongue of an angel (assuming they have their own language), please?? There is NONE, for the tongues are for the unbelievers. Are you trying to win the lost angels back to God?? Are you praying in Gods most holy language that the words which God fashioned on your lips with which to speak, is truly not good enough to make your petitions known? Or maybe as the pentacostals say "it is so the devil can't know what you are praying." Which is silly since he is an angel himself though fallen. Tongues were as a sign to the unbeleiving jews that Gods judgment had once again come upon them for their unbelief, and also for the unbelieving gentile when God enable a person to speak a language the person speaking in tongues should not have previously known!


Take it for a grain of salt if you wish but is pretty much the extent of what I wish to say.



ONE MORE QUICK NOTE: If you heard a person speak plainly to you in your native tongue, which you KNOW they did not know previously; would you think they were drunk?

 

Color Added

Your Punch Line Says It All "Not for self edification"

"May Our Lord Help Us To Humble Our Hearts and Bow Before His Magisty and Holiness In Complete Contrition and Brokennes"

There is a song out that asserts "It's All About Him"

Very Good Allen

 

Is this an argument for cessation? IOW, are you arguing that 'now' (ie. at the time of Paul) there were tongues and prophecy, but 'then' (ie. after the time of the apostles) tongues and prophecy will cease?

If so, it seems to me to ignore the import of vs. 12. When is 'then'? "Then" in vs. 14 is when we will know Christ as He knows us. That does not seem to be a description of today any more than back then. It seems a much better rendering to see it as a reference to death and/or resurrection (considering chapt 15, more likely the latter). Maybe you can explain in more detail how you reach the conclusion of 'then' including the present cause as it stands, it seems to be a big and unwarrented stretch.

If that is not what you intend to argue though, then I am totally in the dark as to your points concerning vs. 8-13. I am simply not following your logic.

I see your assertion, but I don't see how you support it. How do vs 10 and 11 make clear that what is being spoken of is a known language?

Yes Paul use a verse that has to do with Tsrael, and establishes from Scripture the purpose of tongues. However there is no indication in the passage that he is restricting it to unbelieving Israel. It is a sign for unbelievers, not simply unbelieving Israel.

You take the quote of Pauls too far. Paul several times uses quotes from the OT which were originally in reference to the Jews but applies them to all. For example, Rom 3:15 quotes Isa 59:7 which is specifically in reference to Jews, yet in Rom 3 Paul is applying it universally. So yes, there is a way to misunderstand the verse...by coming to it with cessationist or pentacostal presuppositions. Sorry to be snippy, but you make a much harder stance than is warrented by the passage.

Are you saying that Paul says it must be a known language or that this is tne logical conclusion of what Paul says? If the former, then I protest that the verse says nothing of the sort. If the latter, then see below.

You can make this conclusion only if you presume that interpretation is to be done by natural means. If the interpretation is by supernatural means, then both known languages and private language would be possibly relevant. If the interpretation is supernatural, then your logic falls.

 

One could be "the greatest preacher in the world" and "spirit-filled", to boot (whatever any of that means) and preach a sermon in, say, German, Chinese, or the native languages of India, or as JohnofJapan might, Japanese, and I would not understand one word. How would I be edified?

I only speak and understand three languages, fluently. They are English, 'Redneck' and 'BS', and unfortunately I get the last two (even on the BB), all too well, being as I'm from the hills of KY.

Ed

 

Actually all the Scriptural passages in question mention "speaking in tongues/languages (glossa)", and the disciples "spoke" in Acts. Only I Cor., to my knowledge, mentions 'interpretation' as a 'gift'. Hence it is not my place to 'preach' a 'great sermon' in royal, eloquent, flowery, English {double } when my audience knows only Spanish, and there is no interpreter. Better some lay person give a not particularly good message in Spanish, and I keep my trap shut! That is the gist of what Paul is saying!

Ed

 

Since you asked for an "Amen" to both points "1" and "6", I'll say 'Amen!' and 'Amen!'

Just don't assume I'll automatically give 'em. (Or you'll automatically get 'em!) :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

:laugh: :laugh:

Best laugh I've had today! My side is actually hurting between coughing and laughing!

:laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

If there were an interpreter, you would be.

...but I fail to see your point. I raise several concerns and questions and you seem to be side-stepping them.

 

Yeah so? Thats the same book as I Cor 14, hence its perfectly applicable.

Are you referring to preaching and interpreting Spanish by natural means? If not, I am not following you. Can you elucidate?

If so, then I can only point out I Cor 12 in which both are stated as being gifts of the Spirit. Why would you reduce what elsewhere is clearly supernatural to what is simply natural?

 

Since I do not have the gift of 'glossa', I am not referring to preaching 'Spanish'. I could therefore only preach in English. Unless one is present who has the gift of interpretation of languages, hence being able by the spiritual gift to interpret what I may be preaching in my own language, and speaks Spanish, or alternatively one who understands and can interpret by 'natural means', as you put it, the effect and difference is the same. The Spanish audience has no 'tool' by which to understand, unless one or the other of the 'situations' is in play.
Absent either, my 'job' is to "keep my trap shut". I am not 'reducing' the "clearly supernatural" to the "simply natural" at all. One does not cancel out the other, nor does one 'outrank' the other, in the guidelines given in Scripture, for they are the guidelines God gave via the writers. Our 'job' is to follow them. Gotta' go to a doctor's appointment.

Ed

 

Yet as I continue to point out, all that can be true with 'gibberish' as well. The only difference is that 'gibberish' can't be translated by natural means. Why then would one insist that the reference in I Cor 14 is to known languages only. I should not preach in English without a translator if my audience does not understand English, neither should I speak in 'gibberish' without a translator since my audience won't be able to understand that.

Now also, it seems as if you are saying that gift of tongues can be exhibited by natural means. If so, I would strongly challenge this assertion. For one, the examples in Scripture are of it be a supernatural exercise. Secondly, I Cor 14 seems to indicate that it is also speaking about a supernatural and not natural exercise of the gift. Notice, vs. 13 and 14:
For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful.

If I were praying in another language that I naturally understood, then this passage makes no sense. If I naturally spoke both English and Spanish then why would 'my mind be unfruitful', if I prayed in Spanish instead of English? It seems clear that the exercise Paul is speaking of here must be a supernatural one - one in which my spirit is engaged but my understanding doesn't quite follow.

So, since all explicit descriptions of tongues show it to be a supernatual exercise, I would challenge the assertion that it is to be viewed as a natural exercise. Might it be? Possibly...but that would have to be asserted without any Scriptural evidence I am aware of. So, since we are dealing with a supernatural exercise, lets deal with it in those terms.