The Bible Tongues is not what being done today

Yes I can document it. In other words, I can provide the names that you are looking for, the dates, and the name of the church. But I won't. A man is entitled to his privacy. It would be unethical for me to post a person's name on a board like this without permission to do so.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]This was originally posted on November 30. What part of "I won't" does Link and Atestring not understand? Further repetitive and needless posts harassing this moderator for the aforesaid information will consequently be deleted.
DHK

 

Walguy quote the verse I quoted,
I Corinthians 14: 28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


Then Walguy wrote,
***The verse you quote is specifically addressing the use (and non-use) of tongues IN THE ASSEMBLY, and does not in any way support the private use of tongues.***

This is a matter of logic. If the man who speaks in tongues without interpretation is supposed to keep silent IN THE ASSEMBLY, then isn’t the implication that he is to speak in tongues ‘to himself, and to God’ ____ outside ____ the assembly? How could he ___ speak ____ to himself and to God in tongues in the assembly and keep silent at the same time?

If you interpret this passage in some other way, please explain it. The only other possible interpretation I could think of is if someone is ‘speaking in tongues’ silently, but still he is doing this self-edifying activity without interpretation, which is still the private use of tongues.

We see in this passage
1. The man is speaking in tongues (v. 27)
2. There is no interpreter (in the case in verse 28)
3. He must be silent in the assembly.
4. He is permitted to speak in tongues ‘privately’ (i.e. ‘to himself and to God.)

Honestly, I do not see any other reasonable way of looking at the passage that excludes these four points. If you have another interpretation, please explain.

***As for 'praying in tongues,' jump back to verses 14-15 of I Cor 14: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray with the mind also." In the context of his entire discourse about Spiritual Gifts in general and tongues in particular, Paul can only be saying that it is NOT good to pray by yourself in a tongue, where you don't know what you are saying and there is no one to interpret.****

You seem to be saying the opposite of what the verses you quote are saying. Praying with the spirit is good. That is why Paul says he will do it. He doesn’t not say that he will not pray with the S/spirit. Praying with the understanding is good. That is why Paul will do it. A few verses later, Paul says that the person who blesses with the Spirit gives thanks well, but the other is not edified.

If a person gives thanks in tongues, he does it well, but without interpretation, other people are not edified. If he is edified, is that a good thing? Sure. But the purpose of the assembly is not for one person to edify himself and waste the group’s time. Instead, we are supposed to be edifying the group with whatever we do in the assembly. Paul’s argument that tongues need to be interpreted is closely related to the purpose of church meetings. In a church meeting, everything is to be done unto edification. Paul’s argument is not that speaking in tongues to edify oneself is wrong, but rather since the church meeting is about mutual edification—not self edification—tongues need to be interpreted to edify the assembly.

Paul says that he that speaks in tongues edifies himself. Edifying oneself is a good thing. Edify means to build up. It does _ not _ mean to make yourself look important. It is good to edify yourself. But as Paul says early in the chapter, he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks in tongues? Why is this the case? Because the one who prophesies edifies the church. The one who speaks in tongues edifies himself. Speaking in tongues is good because it is edifying oneself. But is inferior to prophecy which edifies the whole. The exception to this is if the tongues are interpreted so that the whole church can be edified.

**** Rather, we are all to pray in words that we DO understand, and thus pray with both our spirit AND our mind.****

Show me where the passage says that praying words you do understand is praying with your spirit and you mind. Paul says when he speaks in tongues his spirit prays.

Look at this verse:
15. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.

Notice the word ‘also’. In addition to praying with his spirit, Paul would pray with his understanding also.

And this verse:
16. Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?

Notice the implication. If giving thanks in the common language is blessing ‘with the spirit’ and with the understanding, then why can’t the person that does not understand say ‘amen.’ Carefully read this verse and notice that the phrase ‘bless with the spirit’ implies that the blessing is being done in tongues. Paul uses ‘bless in the spirit’ in this verse here to signify speaking in tongues, in contrast to speaking with the understanding. It makes sense then that when Paul says ‘pray with the spirit’ in verse 15 that he is referring to speaking in tongues, and ‘pray with the understanding’ in verse 15 refers to praying in one’s natural language. Let the passage define the terminology.

***In between those two quotes falls Paul's description of the true purpose and correct usage of the genuine gift of tongues, none of which has anything to do with private use. ****

Keeping quiet in the church and speaking to himself and to God is ‘private use.’ I really do not see how you can get around this. Do you have another logical explanation for that verse?

***As I keep pointing out in these threads, Paul began his entire discussion of Spiritual Gifts in Chapter 12 with the statement, "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit FOR THE COMMON GOOD." (12:7 emphasis mine) That was a basic parameter for the entire dscussion that was to follow. To say that in chapter 12 Paul said that all true Spiritual Gifts are given for the common good, and then that he said in chapter 14 that one of the gifts is fine to use to edify yourself, turns Paul into one very confused person, and the Holy Spirit who inspired his words into a God of confusion.****

Brother, I think you are the one being confused, and you are interpreting things into the I Corinthians 12:7 that are not there.

The gifts are given for the common good. But this passage does not teach us that a gift will never be used to edify one person in the body, or that the person who has the gift can never use it to edify himself. All gifts used properly are for the common good. Self-edification does work toward the common good. In church meeting in particular, expressions of gifts need to be done in a way that works towards the common good.

If Paul got sick God healed Paul miraculously through the gift of healing God gave to Paul, would that have been a contradiction of this verse? No. This may have happened at some time in Paul’s life, or maybe it never did. We do not know from scripture. But we do know that the word of knowledge is a gift of the Spirit. ‘Word’ here is ‘logos’, which can even refer to a lengthy message. The book of Luke was a ‘logos.’ Paul, or some other man, was gifted to be able to see the third heaven. Yet he was either not allowed or not able to tell what he saw there. Did this visionary experience edify the whole body? Was it for the common good? I believe it was for the common good, though it did not happen directly to the whole body. Assuming the man who went into the third heaven was Paul, then this experience may have strengthened him to reach more people and edify people more in the church. John got some revelation that he was not permitted to write down in the Book of Revelation. We may not have benefited from it as directly as we might have, but all these things work toward the common good.

If self-edification were completely forbidden, then we would need to stop reading our Bibles by ourselves and probably stop a lot of the prayer that we do, and only pray and study in groups Personal Bible study is a form of self-edification. Fortunately, we know from scripture that personal Bible study is a good thing. Jesus taught His disciples to have private time in prayer, closing the door to the ‘closet.’ Also, David encouraged himself in the Lord.

The way you are interpreting ‘for the common good’ contradicts I Corinthians 14:28. The problem is with your interpretation of this phrase in I Corinthians 12:7. These passages make sense together if we realize that individual edification works together for the common good. If someone edifies himself through prayer and Bible study, he has the potential to be more effective in mutual edification in the church.

*** When you read the enitire discussion as a unit and interpret individual verses within that context, you come to much more sensible understanding than you do by jerking a few verses completely out of context and reinterpreting them to support what you had already decided to believe before you ever started really studying the passage.***

I do read entire passages. I Corinthians was one of my Bible quiz books in high school, so I had it memorized at one time, and I’ve studied these passages in depth many times over the years. I am not yanking verses out of context. I believe the root of our disagreement here is that you are reading the passage with a negative attitude toward tongues. Maybe you have a desire to disprove the ‘prayer language’ theory.

***I am very bothered by your statement, "This is scripture and it is not something you debate, even if it does not make sense to you." That statement itself contradicts Scripture, which tells us to test the spirits to see whether are from God (I John 4:1).***

Do you think you need to test the spirits to see if the scriptures are from God? My point here is that you should not argue with the Bible, and if a passage doesn’t make sense, you don’t disagree with the passage. You need to seek after better understanding.


****That statement of yours tells me that you have been carefully taught to never question the interpretations of certain verses that you have been given, to never think for yourself, but to just accept what you have been taught as indisputable truth, and brand anyone who disagrees as wrong without ever really considering what they say. I'm not at all surprised.*****

You read a lot into my statement that is not there. Maybe you met someone who meets the description you presented and are judging me based on this past experience.

I’ve run across a lot of Baptists who seem to think that whatever the preacher says is true, no matter what. I’m not like that. I am open to learning and growing in my understanding of scripture. I do not have a denominational party line that I will defend no matter how illogical it is. I grew up Pentecostal and was taught that tongues was an exclusive evidence of baptism with the Holy Spirit. I abandoned this teaching because I do not see it taught in scripture. Some Charismatics I’ve run across think you are supposed to speak in tongues at the same time in church, and I disagree with that. Many of them think one preacher is supposed to lead the church meeting, as many Baptists do, and preach one sermon while the rest of the people are silent. I do not see this in scripture. Rather I see a meeting that involved mutual edification with the gifts, with the opportunity for more than one person to teach, prophesy, etc. I am convinced of these things from scripture, not because I am parroting some preacher.

You don’t know me very well. My response was to someone who rejected something plainly taught in I Corinthians 14: 28.

**** Modern 'tongues' speakers are driven by the emotional high they receive from their ecstatic babbling, and will not let anything, even God's truth, get in the way of another dose of it.*****

And if I wanted to argue based on stereotypes, I could say: It seems like a lot of people who hold to a cessationist position resort to using ad homenem (sp) attacks and straw man arguments about Charismatics to fill up bandwidth with tangents because they cannot refute the Biblical doctrines of the gifts of the Spirit.

Speaking in tongues for me doesn’t cause an ‘emotional high’ any more than speaking in English does. It is not an ‘ecstatic’ experience for me any more than prayer in English is. I think you are just playing up on some kind of stereotype you have seen in the movies and a few churches you may have visited. A lot of Charismatics are less into emotionalism than some types of revivalistic rural Baptists.

I’ve run across a lot of Baptists who mostly likely do not speak in tongues who were a lot more into emotionalism than myself. I don’t care for emotionalism, but I do believe in gifts of the Spirit. Personally, I prefer preaching, teaching, and prophesying done in a natural tone of voice, like people use in ‘real life’ outside of the church, without excessive 17th century English. I’ve heard a lot of Baptist preachers who think it is spiritual to talk really loud and emotionally with a lot of religious cliché’s, just like some Pentecostal preachers do. I grew up in the South. I’m not a fan of emotionalism, but I think of it as cultural wrapping paper, and often the contents of the box are good even if you don’t care for the wrapping paper.

 

DHK wrote,

** The gift of tongues was not a selfish gift given for selfish purposes as individual prayer. **

If you think individual prayer is selfish, do you believe it should be forbidden? What do you do with the verse from the Sermon on the Mount about praying in secret?

For an alternative viewpoint to the DHK quote above, see I Corinthians 14:28.

 

Since we all like to stick to scripture, show me in the bible where it says someone spoke "gibberish"!

I know that some people are faking, and maybe got their particular brand from the devil.

BUT where in scripture does it say they spoke with the tongues of devils??

I sometimes see posts on this thread, and even though it is in english, it is still gibberish, because it is just so much senseless drivel.

And just in case somebody forgot, I am a tongue talker, got it from God, and I'm proud that He gave me the opportunity to speak in a launguage from Him.

If you haven't tried it don't knock it.

Peace,

Tam

 

Can't believe ya'll would go all the way back to the first page and quote me........

I think the obvious difference between learning to speak Spanish and what happened on the day of Pentecost is that nobody had to teach them to speak in tongues. I think this is part of what John is talking about. It was a work of the Holy Spirit that was somewhat unexpected (there wasn't a planned crusade with signs and wonders to follow). It was something that God did on his own timetable, and in his own way. When I was in college the first time, I had a friend try to teach me how to speak in tongues, and I remember how he talked about relaxing and letting go and opening up to the emotions of the moment. I also remember how I was made to feel as if I wasn't as holy and filled with the Spirit as he was because I didn't speak in tongues. The problem with many of the charasmatic movements today, IMO, is that they are manufactured through the use of emotions and somewhat New Age teachings.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]BTW I never ssen where in the BIBLE you had to to teach someone to speak in tongues. </font>[/QUOTE]6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

So are ya'll saying I can't recive the gift of knowledge?

Also far as "teaching" and "learning" goes, I have found these scriptures.....

Luke 12:11-12-
And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

John 14:26 -
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

As to JBot's reply where he talked about a friend teaching/coaching him on how to speak in tongues..... You also have to remember that the people on the day of Pentacost was obediant enough as to wait for 40 days to recive and were all in one accord.

Music4Him

 

I think the obvious difference between learning to speak Spanish and what happened on the day of Pentecost is that nobody had to teach them to speak in tongues. I think this is part of what John is talking about. It was a work of the Holy Spirit that was somewhat unexpected (there wasn't a planned crusade with signs and wonders to follow). It was something that God did on his own timetable, and in his own way. When I was in college the first time, I had a friend try to teach me how to speak in tongues, and I remember how he talked about relaxing and letting go and opening up to the emotions of the moment. I also remember how I was made to feel as if I wasn't as holy and filled with the Spirit as he was because I didn't speak in tongues. The problem with many of the charasmatic movements today, IMO, is that they are manufactured through the use of emotions and somewhat New Age teachings.

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]BTW I never ssen where in the BIBLE you had to to teach someone to speak in tongues. </font>[/QUOTE]6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; 9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; 10 To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

So are ya'll saying I can't recive the gift of knowledge?

Also far as "teaching" and "learning" goes, I have found these scriptures.....

Luke 12:11-12-
And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 12 For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

John 14:26 -
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

As to JBot's reply where he talked about a friend teaching/coaching him on how to speak in tongues..... You also have to remember that the people on the day of Pentacost was obediant enough as to wait for 40 days to recive and were all in one accord.

Music4Him </font>[/QUOTE]I only recently looked at this thread and wasn't about to read all those pages of stuff, so I responded to the statements on the first page.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just in case some of you may have missed this, I will post it again:


Since we all like to stick to scripture, show me in the bible where it says someone spoke "gibberish"!

I know that some people are faking, and maybe got their particular brand from the devil.

BUT where in scripture does it say they spoke with the tongues of devils??

I sometimes see posts on this thread, and even though it is in english, it is still gibberish, because it is just so much senseless drivel.

And just in case somebody forgot, I am a tongue talker, got it from God, and I'm proud that He gave me the opportunity to speak in a launguage from Him.

If you haven't tried it don't knock it.

Peace,

Tam

 

The gift of tongues was given to the whole church, not to just individual members for their own private (selfish) use. Yes, it should be forbidden for such purposes. Actually the modern day practice of tongues should be forbidden completely because it is not a Biblical gift, and ceased by the end of the first century. What goes on today is not of the Holy Spirit at all.
Jesus taught to "pray in secret." He never taught to pray in tongues in secret.

OK, Let's see 1Cor.14:28.
1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Note these thiigs:
1. If there is no interpreter, SHUT UP!!
2. Let him speak to himself and to God.

There is nothing here about tongues, nothing! It doesn't mention tongues; it doesn't say tongues. It says "Let him speak to himself and to God. One can speak to himself without the gift of tongues. I would advise you to do so.
DHK

 

Alright, lets answer your question with Scriptrue, as per your request. The question, however, will be: "Will you accept the Scriptural asnwer I give you?"

1 Corinthians 12:1-3 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I would not have you ignorant.
2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.
3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

In verse one Paul emphasizes that he does not want you to be ignorant concerning these things--concerning spiritual gifts. But the main teaching is in verse three. We need to think very carefully about what was going on according to the information we have in verse three.

"No man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed." This seems to be a straightforward statement, easy to understand. If you are speaking, by the Holy Spirit (directed by the Holy Spirit) you will not call Jesus Christ accursed. I believe the context is the gift of tongues. No man, speaking in tongues--if he is truly speaking in tongues according to the Holy Spirit would ever call Jesus accursed in the tongue that he is speaking. True?

"No man can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Ghost." On the surface this seems to be an easy enough statement to understand. But wait, there is more to this statement than meets the eye. Any person can say that Jesus is the Lord. Try it. Most of my extended family are not yet saved. But they can say that Jesus is the Lord. There are many false prophets that are come in sheeps clothing. Jesus spoke of them in Mat.7. They can say that Jesus is the Lord. In fact they will. And Jesus will say unto them "Depart from me into everlasting fire for I never knew you." You can get just about any one to repeat the words (even if they don't mean it) "Jesus is the Lord." It is done all the time. So what does this statement mean?

Keeping in the context of tongues, I believe that many were not saying Jesus is the Lord, and couldn't say that Jesus is the Lord, for they were speaking in another tongue--a tongue from the devil. They were demon possessed. They were, no doubt praising Satan and not God. They could not say Jesus is the Lord, because the demon dwelling within wouuld not allow them to. They were speaking by another spirit.

At other times, they were just speaking "senseless drivel, or gibberish, which also was not giving God the glory. They were not saying that "Jesus is the Lord," for they were not speaking a real language. This is what Paul was saying.

You indeed are a tongue-speaker. But you have no way to prove your assertion that it is from God. You don't know what you are saying. It could be from Satan, or just a pshycological high. You don't know, and can't prove that it is from God. What language do you speak? Do you know? Has God revealed even that to you? Then, how do you know it is from God?

That statement has about as much logic in it as: "If you haven't tried heroin, then don't knock it."
DHK

 

I would like to know why Atestring, or Link, or any of the other pro-tongues people have not responded to this post yet.
DHK

 

DHK,

Actually I did respond to this point about Toaist tongues earlier. But if you do not read all the posts in these threads, that explains a lot-- like why you keep making some of the same arguments that you do.


Again, if Taoists 'speak in tongues' that doesn't disprove modern tongues any more than it disproves the tongues in Acts.

In Acts 2, the apostles spoke in tongues that the people present understood. But it does not say that they evangelized in tongues. The tongues got attention from the people, and then Peter _ preached _ to the crowd, apparently in some common language, to evangelize them.

In Corinthians, we see that in general, when someone speaks in tongues, no one else understands him unless there is an interpreter.

God can do the Acts 2 thing again, and I cited some reported accounts-- three that I'd heard of, of such things happening. In general, though, tongues follow the description of I Corinthians 14.

It is sad that the Taoists may actually appear to be following the 'liturgy' of I Corinthians 14 more closely, even if they are not doing the real thing. This is unfortunately. The letter of Corinthians applies to a lot of Charismatics. This letter shows that it is possible to use tongues out of order, and some people still use them out of order today. There are Pentecostals and Charismatics, though, who take these passages seriously and do not speak in tongues all at the same time, and require an interpretation for publicly spoken tongues.

 

DHK wrote,
****The gift of tongues was given to the whole church, not to just individual members for their own private (selfish) use. Yes, it should be forbidden for such purposes.***


Do you have any scripture to support your assertion. I have presented scripture that proves your assertion wrong.

If private prayer in tongues builds up the speaker, and you consider this selfish, isn't private prayer in English selfish? Doesn't it build up the speaker's understading? Shouldn't you also argue that private prayer in English should be forbidde?

**
Actually the modern day practice of tongues should be forbidden completely because it is not a Biblical gift, and ceased by the end of the first century. What goes on today is not of the Holy Spirit at all. **

Your own opinion, and a dangerous one at that (Mt 12), and not scripture.

*******************
OK, Let's see 1Cor.14:28.
1 Corinthians 14:28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

Note these thiigs:
1. If there is no interpreter, SHUT UP!!
2. Let him speak to himself and to God.

There is nothing here about tongues, nothing! It doesn't mention tongues; it doesn't say tongues. It says "Let him speak to himself and to God. One can speak to himself without the gift of tongues. I would advise you to do so.

***************

So, is making a passage say what you want it to is more important that context?

Look at that phrase in verse 28
"and let him speak to himself, and to God."

And compare it to this phrase from verse 2.

"For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: "


Now look at verses 27 and 28 together, in context.

27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


'Let him speak to himself and to God' is still part of the condition 'if any man speak in an unknown tongue.' The 'him' who speaks to himself and to God is the man who speaks 'in an unknown tongue' in verse 27.

"If any man speak in an unknown tongue...let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God."

Of course, this is to occur under the condition that there is no interpreter.

I still cannot see how anyone can resiously study this passage in depth and come away with a rational interpretation that forbids the use of private tongues. It is clear enough from this passage.

 

Tried it once. It wasn't that great.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Well, DHK has given me an interesting answer. does anyone else have one?

Peace,

Tam

 

Tam, do you accept his opinion?

MEE

 

I make the same arguments because they go unanswered Scripturally.

Obbviously it does. You love to insuate that I lie to you. You call to question my integrity. But when Amen says the same thing in different words you don't even bother to answer his post. In fact you can't. You have no answer. At one point either you or Atestring (I believe you) in so many words called him ignorant, and didn't know what he was talking about. How arrogant!!
Amen has testified that he has first hand knowledge. His testimony is this:

Consider: Hindus in trances (demon possessed), mediums (those that deal with demons or evil spirits). What is the difference between these people and their demonic experiences and the Charismatic and their experiences? NONE! The obvious conclusion was that in that culture the so-called Christian comunity was influenced in their speaking in tongues by demonic spirits. Many of them were probably demon possessed. Is speaking in tongues of God? Obviously not. I give a similar testimony, and you badger me about. Amen give a first hand testimony, much more powerful than mine, and you cannot answer him a word. Why is that Link??

What was the major purpose of tongues according to 1Cor.14:21,22. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew. What did this sign do? It got the attention of the unbelieving Jews who were there for the Passover. What was the result after Peter preached? 3000 people were saved.

Very true. Tongues always had to have an interpreter--always. If there was no interpreter--no understanding, the tongues-speaker was instructed to keep quiet.

God will never repeat the Day of Pentecost--never. This was an historic event in history, just as God speaking to Moses through the burning bush. It will never happen again. Where in history has God ever allowed his chosen ones to speak in other languages, with a mighty rushing wind present, and cloven tongues of fire hanging over their heads? Never! In has never again been repeated in history, and never will. It was a one-time historical event.

You have it backwards, and in your blindness to the error of the Charismatic movement you will not admit it, no matter what evidence is presented to you.
These Taosits, probably have no idea what the Bible says in 1Cor.14, much less in the rest of the Bible. No how sincere a person is regarding salvation, if he doesn't beleive the gospel, he will not be saved. Sincerity won't get you to heaven. No matter how sincere a Charismatic may be concerning his experience concerning tongues may be, that won't make it right. Our doctrine is not measured by our sincerity. You can be sincere and unsaved. You can be sincere and totally deceived, as most Charismatics are. It is quite evident that these Taosits and Charismatics are in the same camp. There is no evidence that either one of them are spoken by the power of the Holy Spirit. You have no way of demonstrating that. You don't know what you are saying when you are speaking in tongues, so yes indeed you could be worshipping the devil, and not God.
DHK

 

What Scripture? The Bible does not contradict itself. Realize at least this much. In the context of the entire Book of 1Corinthians, chapters 12 to 14 all deal with spiritual gifts and the abuse thereof. "I would not have you ignorant concerning spiritual gifts" (1Cor.12:1).

In chapter 12 Paul ocnstantly uses the term "the body." The body is the local church. It is the church at Corinth that he is referring to.

1 Corinthians 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
Tongues were given to the whole body, the whole church. They were never given to just one person. They were never given for a prayer language, just for one person's personal edification. That is a selfish use of the gift.

Absolutely not. With tongues there is no understanding, and therefore no edification and no building up. If you don't know what your saying, how do you know what you are praying for, and how do you know that you are even praying to the right God. Maybe you are praying to Satan. You don't know for sure. It doesn't build you up. It gives you an emotional high. The Bible speaks against running your life on your emotions. When you use your own mother "tongue" or English, (or whatever you mother tongue may be), you can pray intelligently to God. Prayer is speaking to God.

Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips
moved, but her voice was not heard: (ISam.1:13)
--That is prayer. It is from the heart. You can read about what her prayer was in ISamuel.

Frist, it is not opinion if it is based on the Word of God, and can be demonstrated to be so.
Second, it is dangerous not to heed the Word of God, rather than to see the truth of God, and to disobey it.
Tongues have ceased. This is easily demonstrated from Scripture to all those who have an open and objective mind to believe the Scripture. It is demonstrable through 1Cor.14:21,22 alone, let alone all the other Scripture that point to the cessation of tongues. If you have no unbelieving Jews present, then it is unbiblical. But in truth it was a sign to the unbelieving Jews of the first century. That is the context of the verses. If you want to discuss this passage, we can.

And this proves what? The verse is a rebuke. Take in its context. He is telling them not to speak in tongues without an interpreter. Thus speak unto God. But what happens when you speak unto God. There is still no understanding. It is a reproof, not an encouragement. You are misreading the statement and taking it out of context.
You only quoted the verse in part. That is being deceitful, and taking Scripture out of context.

1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
--Even unto God you are speaking mysteries when you speak in tongues. In other words speaking nonsense to God, intelligent gibberish that not even God or you understand, is useless. If you don't understand what you are saying, that God doesn't understand what you are trying to express to Him. I am not underestimating his omniscience here. Use an earthly illustration.
I am a missionary in a mid-eastern nation. After a Charismatic attended a Pentecostal crusade, he felt so ("filled with the Spirit)--actually it was "so emotonal," that in this crowded bus, full of Muslims, he began to speak in "tongues." What do you think happened? Just as Paul said would happen, they all thought that he was crazy, of course. He was mad! It was a silly thing to do. They didn't understand what he was saying, and when people speak gibberish, no man understands it, because it is not a real language.
Communication, either with God, or with man, requires understanding. Tongues does not permit that.

Agreed, let's do that.

Speaking to yourself and to God is not speaking in tongues. It is not part of the speaking in tongues; it never was. The former was a rebuke not to do it. God doesn't want to hear mysteries. God wants your understanding.
When you speak to God, you speak with understanding. That means you speak in your language. It is that simple.
I still cannot see how a person who objectively studies this passage cannot come away with the conclusion that this passage would teach anything else but that a person would never pray in tongues. Praying in tongues is a selfish gift. Tongues is clearly a gift given to the entire church, never to be used privately.
DHK

 

DHK wrote,
**The gift of tongues was given to the whole church, not to just
**individual members for their own private (selfish) use. Yes,
**it should be forbidden for such purposes. Actually the modern
**day practice of tongues should be forbidden completely because
**it is not a Biblical gift, and ceased by the end of the first
**century. What goes on today is not of the Holy Spirit at all.
**Jesus taught to "pray in secret." He never taught to pray in
**tongues in secret.

1. The Bible doesn't teach the gift ceased.
2. The Bible commands 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.'
3. If the reasons praying in tongues in private was forbidden (in your opinion) is because it was 'selfish', then why isn't all private prayer forbidden.

In your response to Tamborine Lady, you say,

**Keeping in the context of tongues, I believe that many were
**not saying Jesus is the Lord, and couldn't say that Jesus is
**the Lord, for they were speaking in another tongue--a tongue
**from the devil. They were demon possessed. They were, no doubt
**praising Satan and not God. They could not say Jesus is the
**Lord, because the demon dwelling within wouuld not allow them
**to. They were speaking by another spirit.


This is just your opinion. The verse about not cursing the Lord Jesus doesn't specify tongues. In fact, if someone cursed Christ in tongues, it is unlikely that others would understand if it were spoken in tongues. Paul might have true and false prophecy in mind here rather than tongues. The Matthew 7 passage does not mention workers of iniquity speaking in tongues. It mentions them claiming to prophesy and cast out devils in Christ's name. Christ sent out true prophets and true men who prophesied in his name, and then there were false prophets and unrighteous men who did the same. Neither passage is a reason to reject the gifts of the Spirit today.

But I believe the verse from Corinthians is enough to cause us to accept the possibility that there might be some demonic tongue. But honestly, your case that this actually happened in Corinth is about as strong as the case that Paul spoke in tongues of angels. Common sense is enough. From the New Testament, there is enough evidence to conclude that demons spoke Greek or at least Hebrew or Aramaic through the people they demonized. It is conceivable that some demonized people in then US and spoke in Greek and pretended to be 'speaking in tongues'.

**At other times, they were just speaking "senseless drivel, or
**gibberish, which also was not giving God the glory. They were
**not saying that "Jesus is the Lord," for they were not
**speaking a real language. This is what Paul was saying.

No it is not. You are saying this. Paul says nothing in this passage about 'senseless drivel.' Foreign languages are barbarian language to those who do not understand. If you try to speak English to a Chinese mountain man who doesn't understand it, you are just 'beating into the air.' But Paul never mentions speaking gibberish that had no meaning anywhere. I thought we were in agreement on this.


**27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two,
**or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one
**interpret.
**28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in
**the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.


**I make the same arguments because they go unanswered
**Scripturally.

It is hard to have a discussion if you do keep repeating your original points without responding to other people's responses to your original points. That is one reason why there is so much repetition in this thread and so little progress.

On the issue of tongues as a sign, I would like you to respond to the point I have made repeatedly in the thread several months ago and in this thread.

There are a few purposes for tongues in I Corinthians 14. Why would tongues cease if only one purpose was fulfilled? If tongues were a sign for the Jews, why would tongues cease? There are still Jews.

The first time the prophecy Paul quoted was fulfilled, the Jews captors kept speaking to them in a non-Hebrew language for centuries. The Jews themselves were speaking the word of God in non-Hebrew languages until the time of Christ, and are continuing to do so to this day whenever they read the scriptures out loud in a non-Hebrew tongue.

The 'tongues for a sign' passage doesn't say anything about tongues ceasing. It is about tongues being a sign, not about tongues ceasing. You haven't even made a case for tongues ceasing from this passage in this thread. You haven't explained the connection between a sign and ceasing. My dictionary has two definitions for these two words.

**Again, if Taoists 'speak in tongues' that doesn't disprove
**modern tongues any more than it disproves the tongues in
**Acts.


**Obbviously it does. You love to insuate that I lie to you. You
**call to question my integrity. But when Amen says the same
**thing in different words you don't even bother to answer his
**post. In fact you can't. You have no answer.

If you will look through the thread, you will see that I have answered the issue he raised at least twice. This is the third time I'm addressing it.

If someone speaks in Lithuanian and curses God, and someone else speaks in Lithuanian and blesses God, you are not going to be able to distinguish which one is which unless you know some Lithuanian or a similar language, or you have some kind of revelation, or some kind of other cue that gives you a hint as to who said what. Foreign languages sound foreign, so if a poster on this forum who is probably not a linguist, who has no special training, cannot tell the difference between a pagan 'tongue' and Christians speaking in tongues, what does that prove? Taoist tongues no more disprove modern tongues than they disprove Acts 2 tongues.

As for questioning your integrity, I recall saying it was disingenuous to claim that no early church writings indicated that tongues continued after the apostles, when you haven't bothered to research early church writings, and such writings do exist. I posted a quote from one such writing, and I didn't see you refute it except to downlplay the importance of patristic writings. I also pointed out how careful you were to protect the identity of a preacher who probably agrees with you on tongues, but you were quick to label a preacher who disagrees with you a 'heretic' based on a web page, and make allegations against him that you did not back up.

I think you are confusing me with another poster who thought you might be lying about the Baptist preacher and the demon. That wasn't me.

At one point
**either you or Atestring (I believe you) in so many words
**called him ignorant, and didn't know what he was talking
**about. How arrogant!!

Please point out where I said this. If you think I have mistreated you in some way, please feel free to contact me and discuss it. A private conversation would have the benefit of not clogging up a website or leading the conversation off track. I do not recall call calling Atestring or anyone 'ignorant' in this thread. It would not be too much to ask for you to look up who said what before you insinuate that I was the one who said it.


Amen wrote,
** I've had my share of visiting these Chinese temples, seen
**Hindus in trance and consulted mediums. The thing I noticed
**after I became a Christian and attended a few Charismatic
**churches is that there is really no difference in the
**tongues spoken by the Taoist mediums, Hindu trance and the
**Charismatic Christians.

Based on what does Amen say this? Does he have supernatural revelation that these tongues are the same? If they look the same externally, this proves nothing. A Lithuanian in a business suit have a conversation in a restaurant misusing God's name could look the same as a Christian in a business suit blessing God's name. If you do not speak Lithuanian or have some kind of revelation through the gift of discernment, the word of knowledge, or some other gift, how could you tell the difference.

Some Hindus go into trances. Peter fell into a trance once on a housetop. Paul fell into a trance in the temple once. The fact that some Hindus fall into trances do not make the apostles trances wrong. If witches drink coffee, that doesn't mean Christians can't drink coffee.

A poster wrote,
**Consider: Hindus in trances (demon possessed), mediums (those
**that deal with demons or evil spirits). What is the difference
**between these people and their demonic experiences and the
**Charismatic and their experiences? NONE! The obvious
**conclusion was that in that culture the so-called Christian
**comunity was influenced in their speaking in tongues by
**demonic spirits.

This is a conclusion, but it is not logical. If we look at the Bible, we see that there is a difference between the gifts of the Spirit and demonic manifestations-the source and the content.

**Many of them were probably demon possessed.
**Is speaking in tongues of God? Obviously not. I give a similar
**testimony, and you badger me about. Amen give a first hand
**testimony, much more powerful than mine, and you cannot answer
**him a word. Why is that Link??

What you are saying is not true. I have answered the point Amen made in multiple posts. In fact, I answered it on page 8 before the message I am replying to now. My answer is that his post is irrelevant. From the Bible we know that there are demonic manifestations and manifestations of the Spirit. If 'Amen' has difficulty telling the difference, perhaps he should pray for the gift of discernment of spirits.

Your 'testimony'-second hand hearsay actually-does not argue against the reality of tongues. Nor does it argue against my position. I have stated that I believe that there are genuine tongues from the Spirit, and false tongues from either the flesh or demon spirits. So if you can show conclusive proof that there are false tongues, you are simply proving a part of the stance I am taking, not disproving my stance on this issue. So why am I required to respond?

There was another poster who repeatedly demanded you get the name of that man, and said he didn't believe your story. I did not say your story was not true. I asked you once what was the big deal about asking a pastor's permission to repeat what he said. But my main point was that you show the same courtesy to brethren who disagree with you (e.g. Heyford).

**What was the major purpose of tongues according to
**1Cor.14:21,22. It was a sign to the unbelieving Jew. What did
**this sign do? It got the attention of the unbelieving Jews who
**were there for the Passover. What was the result after Peter
**preached? 3000 people were saved.

The point PAUL makes from this Isaiah passage is that tongues is a sign for unbelievers, and he does not specify Jews. The verse he quotes is about 'this people' not believing when they heard God 'speak' through men of other tongues. Then he goes on to illustrate how _unbelievers _ (he does not specify Jews) and the unlearned respond to tongues with unbelief.

**Very true. Tongues always had to have an interpreter--always.
**If there was no interpreter--no understanding, the
**tongues-speaker was instructed to keep quiet.

If tongues _always _ had an interpreter, Paul would not have had to instruct the man speaking in tongues to remain silent in the church, but to speak to himself and to God.

I wrote,
**God can do the Acts 2 thing again, and I cited some reported
**accounts-- three that I'd heard of, of such things
**happening. In general, though, tongues follow the
**description of I Corinthians 14.

DHK responded
**God will never repeat the Day of Pentecost--never. This was an
**historic event in history, just as God speaking to Moses
**through the burning bush. It will never happen again.

By 'the Acts 2 thing' I meant tongues that listeners could hear in particular, and did not have the wind and tongues of fire in mind.

** Where in
**history has God ever allowed his chosen ones to speak in other
**languages, with a mighty rushing wind present, and cloven
**tongues of fire hanging over their heads? Never! In has never
**again been repeated in history, and never will. It was a
**one-time historical event.

Can you show me chapter and verse in scripture where it says that God will never repeat these things again? If you cannot, how can you be so certain? Do you know this because you got a divine, extra-scriptural revelation that God will never do such things again? If you have neither scripture nor personal revelation, you have no 'proof' for your statements. Are you willing to admit that this is your own opinion? Throughout this thread, you have made many such firm statements without any scripture support. This seems to be your attitude toward tongues. You are convinced of your position, but when asked for scriptural proof, your evidence is less than weak.

*quote:

**You have it backwards, and in your blindness to the error of
**the Charismatic movement you will not admit it, no matter what
**evidence is presented to you.

The problem is that you have not presented any evidence. T he last time this thread came around, you presented a passage about the coming of 'the perfect'-something that would cause Paul's experience up to that point to seem like childhood. This time, you present a passage about tongues being for a sign-a passage that says nothing about tongues ceasing-and act like that is evidence that tongues has ceased. Sign does not mean ceased. You haven't offered any proof at all.

My belief in speaking in tongues is not based on the 'Charismatic movement.' I am a part of the body of Christ. The labels you try to pin on me do not change my identify before God in the least. The Bible teaches that tongues is one of the gift of the Spirit, and I believe it, no matter what you say about tongues.

**These Taosits, probably have no idea what the Bible says in
**1Cor.14, much less in the rest of the Bible.

Nor did I say that they did.

It is quite evident that
**these Taosits and Charismatics are in the same camp. There is
**no evidence that either one of them are spoken by the power of
**the Holy Spirit. You have no way of demonstrating that. You
**don't know what you are saying when you are speaking in
**tongues, so yes indeed you could be worshipping the devil, and
**not God.
**DHK

I do not have any solid evidence that you do not go really worship the Devil when you are at home alone, in your prayer closet. I do not have any proof that you really pray to God instead of the Devil in your private prayer time. So what? Am I allowed (by God) to judge you as a Devil worshipper when I have absolutely no evidence that you are worshipping the Devil? Would it be right for me to imply that you are a Devil worshipper if I have no evidence? Of course not. If I have no evidence that you are worshipping the Devil, then I have no evidence.

It is the same with Charismatics. If you have no evidence that they are worshipping the Devil when they speak in tongues, then you have no evidence. I Corinthians is clear that people are not going to understand a speaker in tongues without interpretation, and the speakers own understanding is 'unfruitful.' Does this make tongues bad? No, even without interpretation, the speaker in tongues edifies himself. With interpretation, he can edify the church. The passage teaches us 'Forbid not to speak with tongues.' Why can't you follow this plain command of scripture.

**********************
**Absolutely not. With tongues there is no understanding, and
**therefore no edification and no building up.

You contradict scripture again.
I Corinthians 14
4. He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Does the man who speaks in a tongue edify himself or not? Who I right, you or Paul?

5. I would that ye all spake with tongues; but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

Tongues edifies the one who speaks it. Prophecy edifies the church. Notice there is an exception-that is in the case that the tongues are interpreted.


**It doesn't build you up. It gives you an emotional high.

It does build me up, which we can see from scripture, but I do not get an 'emotional high.' You do not know what you are talking about.

**Tongues have ceased. This is easily demonstrated from
**Scripture to all those who have an open and objective mind to
**believe the Scripture. It is demonstrable through
**1Cor.14:21,22 alone, let alone all the other Scripture that
**point to the cessation of tongues.

Those two verses say absolutely nothing about tongues ceasing. Even if one holds that the sign was specifically to the Jews, the verse still says nothing about tongues ceasing.

Furthermore, there is another use for tongues in I Corinthians 14-edifying the speaker. Another use is edifying the church if accompanied by interpretation. Gifts are given 'to profit withal.' You acknowledge that this is a purpose of gifts. Tongues is included in that list. So it doesn't make sense that tongues would cease even if one purpose of tongues (you argue a sign to the unbelieving Jews in particular) was no longer needed. The last time I checked, however, there were plenty of unbelieving Jews.

**But in truth it was a
**sign to the unbelieving Jews of the first century. That is the
**context of the verses. If you want to discuss this passage, we
**can.

Sure. You may want to start by responding to the lengthy comments I have already made about this verse in previous threads. If you don't respond to the points made in the threads, and just repeat your first points, whether true or false, then it is hard for the conversation to go anywhere.

**And this proves what? The verse is a rebuke. Take in its
**context. He is telling them not to speak in tongues without an
**interpreter. Thus speak unto God. But what happens when you
**speak unto God. There is still no understanding. It is a
**reproof, not an encouragement.

C&V, C&V. Show me where you get this idea that Paul's point is if they speak in tongues to God, there is still no understanding and they should not do it.

It is clear from the passage that, even though the understanding of the speaker in tongues is not fruitful, the speaker in tongues edifies himself. The exception to this is if the tongues are interpreted.

What you are doing is reading your own negative attitude toward tongues into the passage. Paul's attitude toward prophecy is very positive in the passage. His attitude toward tongues with interpretation is positive, but he may not be as enthusiastic as enthusiastic as he is toward prophecy. What is his attitude towards uninterpreted tongues? I would say mildly positive. He recognizes that uninterpreted tongues edify the speaker. He says to 'let' people speak in tongues and 'forbid not' to speak in tongues.

He uses 'let' in 'let him speak to himself and to God. Paul points out that there is a positive to uninterpreted tongues, self-edification. He spends a lot of the chapter arguing that edifying the church is superior to edifying oneself, arguing that tongues in church need to be interpreted. Paul allows uninterpreted tongues, but not in the church. Actually, he gives the Lord's commandments about these things. Paul commands "covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues." He has blatant enthusiasm towards prophesy, but he makes sure that tongues are allowed.

Where do you get that Paul is negative toward uninterpreted tongues? It isn't in the passage. You are brining the idea with you into the passage when you read it. It comes from your own mind. Paul's idea is that tongues be allowed and not forbidden. So how in the world do you come up with the idea that Paul is flat out forbidding speaking in tongues without interpretation. He says 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' Aside from the restrictions he has laid out in the passage, there is freedom for speaking in tongues.

**You are misreading the
**statement and taking it out of context.
**You only quoted the verse in part. That is being deceitful,
**and taking Scripture out of context.

I quoted the verse and clearly snipped part out in a way that everyone could see what I saw doing to show what part refered to what. He that is to 'speak to himself and to God' is the man who speaks in tongues-if there is no interpretation. This is clear from the passage. Paul says the let the man speak to himself and to God. You seem to be saying that his real point in saying 'let him speak to himself and to God' is that he should NOT be speaking in tongues to God privately. That makes no sense whatsoever, and it does not agree with the plain sense of the text.

Btw, there are may be some stronger straws to grasp at on the left side of the cliff.


**1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue
**speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth
**him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

**--Even unto God you are speaking mysteries when you speak in
**tongues. In other words speaking nonsense to God, intelligent
**gibberish that not even God or you understand, is useless. If
**you don't understand what you are saying, that God doesn't
**understand what you are trying to express to Him. I am not
**underestimating his omniscience here. Use an earthly
**illustration.

That illustration is very earthly, and not very scriptural. God understands all mysteries. In context, we can see that the tongues are a 'mystery' because if someone doesn't know a language, they cannot understand it. What is said is a mystery. The passage explains what Paul means when he says 'mystery'-and it certainly does not mean that God doesn't understand tongues. What does it mean when it says that tongues are a mystery?

11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me.

If someone speaks in a foreign language I do not know, what he is saying is a 'mystery.'

**I am a missionary in a mid-eastern nation. After a Charismatic
**attended a Pentecostal crusade, he felt so ("filled with the
**Spirit)--actually it was "so emotonal," that in this crowded
**bus, full of Muslims, he began to speak in "tongues." What do
**you think happened? Just as Paul said would happen, they all
**thought that he was crazy, of course. He was mad! It was a
**silly thing to do. They didn't understand what he was saying,
**and when people speak gibberish, no man understands it,
**because it is not a real language.
**Communication, either with God, or with man, requires
**understanding. Tongues does not permit that.

That sounds like the example Paul gave of the whole church speaking in tongues in the presence of a visiting unbeliever. Paul was using this in a passage about REAL SPEAKING IN TONGUES-not a passage about fake speaking in tongues. So using gifts foolishly does not mean the gifts are not real, whether we are talking about the first century or the 21st century.

27. If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by
two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let
one interpret.
28. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in
the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

**Speaking to yourself and to God is not speaking in tongues. It
**is not part of the speaking in tongues; it never was.

I quoted multiple messages from you in this post. It appears you have changed your position between posts.

What you are saying here goes against the plain sense of the text. The one who is to 'speak to himself and to God' is the man that would 'speak in an unknown tongue' in the case that 'there be no interpreter.' This is all clear from the verses above. You ask me to disbelieve the plain sense of the text. On what authority? Because it is your opinion? Do you have some divine revelation that your interpretation is true instead of the plain sense of the text? How can you hold to confidently to a position when there is no reason to believe it? Do you interpret the text this way because that is the only way to make it fit with an idea you believe in so strongly?

** The
**former was a rebuke not to do it. God doesn't want to hear
**mysteries. God wants your understanding.
**When you speak to God, you speak with understanding.

If that is what Paul's point is, why doesn't he make the point in the text? If your 'interpretation' were true, then why does Paul say 'forbid not to speak in tongues.'

If your interpretation were true, then it would make no sense for Paul to write that the man who speaks in tongues builds himself up. But yet he does this in I Corinthians 14:4.


** That
**means you speak in your language. It is that simple.
**I still cannot see how a person who objectively studies this
**passage cannot come away with the conclusion that this passage
**would teach anything else but that a person would never pray
**in tongues.

If Paul's point were that no one should ever pray in tongues privately, then it does not make sense that he would say that tongues builds up the one who uses the gift, to allow a man to speak in tongues without interpretion as long as it was not in the church ('let him speak to himself and to God'), and that he would say in his conclusion 'forbid not to speak with tongues.' If Paul is not enthusiastic about uninterpreted tongues, he at least allows it. This much is clearfromthe passage.

I honestly cannot see how you can come to your conclusion when reading the passage. How about this? We both pray, as Paul did for the Ephesians, that we will both receive the Spirit of revelation, and pray that God will open up the understanding of this passage to both of us, so that we can see things God's way. The Holy Spirit reveals scripture.

** Praying in tongues is a selfish gift. Tongues is
**clearly a gift given to the entire church, never to be used
**privately.

Tongues is a gift to the church. In the church it must be used with interpretation so that the whole church be edified. Otherwise, a speaker in tongues without interpretation is allowed to speak to himself and to God, and Christians or forbidden by scripture from forbidding tongues outright.

 

Dear MEE,

If you saw a bear sleeping in a cave, would you get a stick and go poking at him deliberately so that he could wake up, come out and eat you?



Have a good day!!

Tam