Featured Seeking truth about tongues (2)

Only in your very confused mind! Not one of those texts IF interpreted in its immediate context teaches that tongues is for communication with God. I hate to tell you this but you can communicate with God in any dialect. He does not need a special gift of dialects for you to communicate, or praise, or pray to God. However, there is no sense in repeating the obvous contextual bsed answers that refutes your nonsense as you have no ears to hear the truth if it were staring you in the face.

This is another foolish objection that has been answered many times over. In each case there were Jews present. And tongues are a "sign" to "this people."

If it is edifying to the "spirit" of the man speaking why not to the spirits of the persons listening as they are listening to the very same thing. Is it that the spirit of the one speaking can discern it but the spirits of the listeners cannot discern it?????? Nonsense!

Like Satan you do not accept what God actually says but question it. God says through Paul in regard to tongues/foreign dilacts "come to you" and "speak to you." The fact is that Pauls says when a person comes speaking in tongues "to you" it must have proper CONTENT or else it cannot be edifying even if they do understand the sounds!!! If God is behind it then it will have prophetic content, doctrinal content, revelational content, etc.

The Jews on Pentecost understood without an interpeter. The Jews in Acts 10 understood what they were saying without an interpreter. Those to whom it is designed to be a "sign" understand without an interpreter. Only those who use it for other reasons than its "sign" to "THIS PEOPLE" need an interpreter.

My oh my.....He did! Again, you cannot jerk verse 19 out of its immediate context and understand it and that is precisely what you are attempting to do. Verse 18 and verses 20-22 are essential to understand verse 19. But I have already gave you an expository based explanation and you simply ignore it because it does not fit into your system of doctrine. I will do it again:

Verse 18 is an assertion by Paul that he personally speaks in foreign dialects more than all of them. Verse 19 is where he does not do so. Paul will not speak in tongues PRIVATELY without his mind understanding what he is saying (v. 15) and he will not use tongues in the church at all (v. 19). He speaks in tongues more than all of them in a MATURE way (v. 20) and in a way that corresponds with the Biblical purpose for tongues (v. 21) and that is a "sign" to "this people" or the Jews.


Why not privately without understanding? Why not in the church? Because tongues are not for believers and he is PERSONALLY a believer and the church is composed of believers.

If it is not for believers then who is it designed for? For the "unbeliever" but not for the "unlearned" unbeliever - the Gentile as he has no knowledge of the Old testament or understanding of a "sign" from God. Again, it is for the unbelieving Jew who alone was learned in the scriptues and knew the meaning of signs. This is so clear, so simply, that only a very confused mind would reject it as it is spelled out so clearly that only a mind seared and demon influenced (not necessarily possessed) cannot see it due to spiritual blindness.

18 I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:
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.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
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.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:

This is such a silly and foolish interpetation for many reasons. First none of these texts says "because that is what tongues is for" as that is your own assessment not the assessment of Paul or any scripture. Indeed, when it comes to define PURPOSE the Scriptues say the very exact opposite -"TO THIS PEOPLE" "FOR UNBELIEVERS." You have no right to assign PURPOSE where the Scripture does not and deny PURPOSE where the Scripture assigns it and THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT YOUR INTERPRETATION DOES.

The ASSERTION that one is speaking to God in a context where there is no interpreter and no man undestands due to no interpreter is not a statement assigning this is the PURPOSE of foreign dialects.

Not only is there not one single text of Scripture that states this is the PURPOSE of the gift of foreign dialects to speak to God but it is foolish and silly presumption as God does not have to provide HUMAN FOREIGN DIALECTS for His people to speak to Him as he understands your own dialect quite well and the indwelling Spirit can lead you in prayer in your own dialect quite well and has been doing it for centuries.

Your interpretation is based upon READING into scripture what is not there. DENYING what is there. JERKING texts out of context.

 

Speaking into the air, speaking to God is what it is like when none in the assembly understand.

Think! Does Paul ascribe PURPOSE in verse 2 or simply makes an ASSERTION of fact based upon the fact that NONE else understand it? The Greek nor English provide any grammatical indications of PURPOSE being stated. No "hina" clauses. No "because" clauses. It is the indicative mood - which simply makes assertions. None of the verses you quote contain any PURPOSE statements. This is your IMAGINATION period. You are assigning PURPOSE where the text does not.

Would it not be equally true if NO HUMANS understand something that is a spiritual gift of God that in such a circumstance such speaking would be understood only by God alone???????? Common sense????? No purpose clauses, no purpose statements just descriptions of circumstances.

None of these scripture provide any PURPOSE clause or English statements of purpose! - NOT ONE! They are found in the indicative mood that simply provides narrative. However, Paul does provide purpose statements that it is "TO THIS PEOPLE" and it is "FOR" unbelievers who are PEOPLE not God.

Only if the CONTENT is prayer! However, if it is "prophesy" or "doctrine" or "revelation" content it is "TO YOU" = People - v. 6 ; it is "FOR" unbelievers" = People!

He does not say "through" or "by" but "with" and there is a difference. Doctrine is not a speaking gift but CONTENT of speech. He did not say "prophesying" which is a gift but "prophecy" which is CONTENT from God. Revelation is CONTENT from God. Knowledge is CONTENT.

The word "tongues" simply means DIALECTS and a Dialect does not edify anyone if there is no intelligble sounds and/or content which provides edification in the faith.

Finally, he unequivocally states that speaking in tongues is speaking "TO YOU"

6 ¶ Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

Just as he says later that tongues are "FOR unbelievers" = people and "to this people" = people.

....

Try reading verse 5 before reading verse 6. He is not against them speaking in tongues correctly by the principle of edification for all. Verse 6 simply defines the CONTENT of speaking in tongues which would provide such edification!

Read verse 5 before reading verse 6 and that will answer your objection. Because he wants them to speak in tongues the correct way - the way of edification (v. 5) and verse 6 provides the proper content of speaking in tongues which will provide that edification. Verses 6-11 demonstrate this is speaking with understanding and meaning.

You can't be serious????? Your intepretation is rediculous as well as IMPOSSIBLE for many contextual based reasons.

1. Dialects are the "sign" of it not the impartation of rest and refreshing. Do you know what a "sign" is versus what a "sign" is "of"????? A "sign" only serves as an indicator of something more important than it - rest and refreshing.

2. Dialects are a "sign" to UNBELEIVERS. Tongues cannot impart "rest" and "refreshing" for UNBELIEVERS.

3. The immediate context provides where the "rest" and "refreshing" FOR UNBELEIVERS is found - not in tongues - but in Christ - Isa. 28:16 - This is a Messanic prophetic context.

He did not say "prophesying" which is an act and spiritual ability but "prophecy" which CONTENT from God.

Where did I say you were demon "possessed"? I never said such a thing. Do you know the difference between "possession" and "oppression" or "influence"? True children of God cannot be possessed by Satan only oppressed or influenced or guided willingly.

 

And which is why I have decided not to participate in these discussions. And I've almost gotten to the same point about cal/non-cal stuff.

 

Well, I do appreciate everyones patience with me as I presented what I believed and why!

Even though we do not agree on most issues concerning tongues...I wish you all no ill will.

You have given me much to think about and to reconsider. I am going to take a break for awhile and re study this out.

Whether you believe me or not....I am searching for the truth! One good thing that comes out of these debates is the fact that you are challenged at a deep level that most will not touch! So back to the Word for me and we will see what the Holy Spirit will unveil for me!

Have a wonderful fourth of July!

 

I hope your study will be fruitful.

 

The issue is important, but the rancor is counterproductive.