-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Tongues - Tongue of Angels
- Thread starter Don
- Start date
mountainrun
New Member
Other than 1 Cor. 13 I don't know of any.
I would assume that they all speak.
Satan spoke to God in accusing Job.
I would also assume that they have a different language than we do.
I would also assume that it does not involve babbling like an idiot.
MR
I would assume that they all speak.
Satan spoke to God in accusing Job.
I would also assume that they have a different language than we do.
I would also assume that it does not involve babbling like an idiot.
MR
1 Cor 13:1 is the only verse in the Bible that mentions it.
I personally cannot assume that God and the angels speak in their own tongue; the words that you mentioned between Satan and God were recorded in Hebrew.
A search of every verse in the Bible dealing with the words "angel" and "angels" shows that the language being spoken was always understood. Thus, since the meaning of "angel" is "messenger" anyway, there is no logical reason to believe that a tongue of a messenger would be an unknown tongue. Anytime God sent a messenger, it was for a specific purpose, and He wanted His message made clear.
This is further evidenced by the fact that the apostles, while speaking tongues not known to them (i.e., "unknown tongues"), were clearly understood by their audience.
Further, an examination and actual reading of 1 Corinthians 13 (not just verse 1) places verse 1 in context; i.e., verse 2 has Paul asking "though I have all faith, that I could remove mountains"; did Paul remove mountains? v.3 has Paul asking "though I give my body to be burned"; did he?
I can find no scipture that indicates he did either of those. So one must realize that he's asking questions, to make a point: Charity comes first.
1 Cor 13:1 is not a guideline or a justification to speak in a "tongue of angels," for which there is no other scriptural evidence; it is line of questioning intended to make a point.
Using this verse to justify speaking in a "tongue of angels" is exogesis at its best.
I personally cannot assume that God and the angels speak in their own tongue; the words that you mentioned between Satan and God were recorded in Hebrew.
A search of every verse in the Bible dealing with the words "angel" and "angels" shows that the language being spoken was always understood. Thus, since the meaning of "angel" is "messenger" anyway, there is no logical reason to believe that a tongue of a messenger would be an unknown tongue. Anytime God sent a messenger, it was for a specific purpose, and He wanted His message made clear.
This is further evidenced by the fact that the apostles, while speaking tongues not known to them (i.e., "unknown tongues"), were clearly understood by their audience.
Further, an examination and actual reading of 1 Corinthians 13 (not just verse 1) places verse 1 in context; i.e., verse 2 has Paul asking "though I have all faith, that I could remove mountains"; did Paul remove mountains? v.3 has Paul asking "though I give my body to be burned"; did he?
I can find no scipture that indicates he did either of those. So one must realize that he's asking questions, to make a point: Charity comes first.
1 Cor 13:1 is not a guideline or a justification to speak in a "tongue of angels," for which there is no other scriptural evidence; it is line of questioning intended to make a point.
Using this verse to justify speaking in a "tongue of angels" is exogesis at its best.
Bible-belted
New Member
There is no other verse than 1Co 13 that even mentions tongues of angels.Originally posted by Don:
Now, I might point out: Why are the tongues-supporters not flocking here to teach me differently?
Nevertless that one verse suffices to establish that they exist. That is not disputable. To juxtapose one form of tongues (of men) with another (of angels) when only one exists makes no snese, and the grammar of the passage does not support the notion of a pure hypothetical.
Many exegetes hold that Paul was addressing an actual situation, that people believed they were speaking in tongues of angels. Interestingly Paul does not say "no you aren't, there is no such thing". Instead he gives a regulative principle, one that applies to both forms of tongues (and charismata generally).
I disagree. Read Don's post above. IF they exist, prove to me that Paul fathomes all mysteries and knowledge, moved mountains and surrendered his body to be burned. These actions didn't exist, therefore the tongue of angels didn't exist.Originally posted by Latreia:
Nevertless that one verse suffices to establish that they exist.
Paul says that IF he spoke in the tongue of angels it would pointless without love. He also said IF he possesed all knowledge, it would be pointless without love. He later admits he knew in only in part (v 9) which contradicts the fact that he fathomed all all knowledge. Paul was making a point here, and he wanted to emphasise the extreme of having the gift of tongues, so he said even if he spoke in the tongue of angels, without love it was meaningless. The text only proves how hard Paul was trying to make his point. The fact that all the other extremes that he mentioned did not happen, proves this one did not either. It does not prove that their was a tongue of angels or even that people were suggesting that there was one. No where do we see any evidence that people were professing to speak in a tongue of angels, no where.
~Lorelei
Is everything totally rational?
Is everything totally understandable?
Is there any mystery in the scripture that we cannot understand?
I think everything is rational to the Living God, Who reigns from heaven.
I think everything is totally understandable to Him.
There are no mysteries to Him.
And for some who read the Bible, they desire to remove all mysteries that they personally cannot understand. We are made in the image of God. But we will never be God. That means we will never know the totality of what He knows. There will always be mysteries.
And so we have one here in 1 Cor. 13:1
1CO 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If you do not allow for the language of angels, which is distinct from that of man, how can you allow for the language of man?
If Paul is being theoretical in speaking of the language of angels, how can you can he is not being theoretical in speaking of the language of men?
Oh, I get it. It’s because you have heard the language of men, and therefore it exists. You have not heard the language of angels, and therefore, it does not exist.
From the testimony of the Apostle Paul, it appears that he was allowed to visit heaven. He heard and saw things there that he was not allowed to talk about here on earth. For whatever reason, he said it was unlawful, or illegal. Doesn’t make sense to me. But I give Paul the benefit of the doubt.
I think for you the question is:
Were tongues ever valid? Did the Holy Spirit, as part of His work, ever administrate the gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues?
I understand the cessationist viewpoint quite well, growing up in that “doctrine”, to the point of being a teacher of it. Much of the “doctrine” of cessationism revolves around the view that if I haven’t seen it, it doesn’t exist. And if I see it and don’t like it, then I can condemn it.
Tongues of angels? Do you accept that there are tongues of men? Then it’s a stretch from this scripture to say that tongues of angels don’t exist. But feel free to strike it out with an interpretational view. I just think that cessationists would be much more comfortable with a Bible that has been revised, and the parts they don’t like cut out. That’s what Thomas Jefferson did. He published a New Testament with all the supernatural parts cut out that he didn’t like because they offended his own reasoning.
There may still be some copies around. It would make like much easier for the cessationist to not be bothered by these problems. Out of sight, out of mind.
Is everything totally understandable?
Is there any mystery in the scripture that we cannot understand?
I think everything is rational to the Living God, Who reigns from heaven.
I think everything is totally understandable to Him.
There are no mysteries to Him.
And for some who read the Bible, they desire to remove all mysteries that they personally cannot understand. We are made in the image of God. But we will never be God. That means we will never know the totality of what He knows. There will always be mysteries.
And so we have one here in 1 Cor. 13:1
1CO 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
If you do not allow for the language of angels, which is distinct from that of man, how can you allow for the language of man?
If Paul is being theoretical in speaking of the language of angels, how can you can he is not being theoretical in speaking of the language of men?
Oh, I get it. It’s because you have heard the language of men, and therefore it exists. You have not heard the language of angels, and therefore, it does not exist.
From the testimony of the Apostle Paul, it appears that he was allowed to visit heaven. He heard and saw things there that he was not allowed to talk about here on earth. For whatever reason, he said it was unlawful, or illegal. Doesn’t make sense to me. But I give Paul the benefit of the doubt.
I think for you the question is:
Were tongues ever valid? Did the Holy Spirit, as part of His work, ever administrate the gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues?
I understand the cessationist viewpoint quite well, growing up in that “doctrine”, to the point of being a teacher of it. Much of the “doctrine” of cessationism revolves around the view that if I haven’t seen it, it doesn’t exist. And if I see it and don’t like it, then I can condemn it.
Tongues of angels? Do you accept that there are tongues of men? Then it’s a stretch from this scripture to say that tongues of angels don’t exist. But feel free to strike it out with an interpretational view. I just think that cessationists would be much more comfortable with a Bible that has been revised, and the parts they don’t like cut out. That’s what Thomas Jefferson did. He published a New Testament with all the supernatural parts cut out that he didn’t like because they offended his own reasoning.
There may still be some copies around. It would make like much easier for the cessationist to not be bothered by these problems. Out of sight, out of mind.
Don is correct in that the verses are put in a hypothetical context. Nowhere does it say that Paul spoke with the tongues of angels. He did not. "Though (if) I speak with the tongues of men and of angels"
"Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge;"
"Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,"
"Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,"
"Though I give my body to be burned,"
Did Paul understand all mysteries, have all faith to remove mountains, bestow all his goods to feed the poor; did he give his body to be burned? The obvious answer to all of these questions is no. They are all hypothetical. Likewise Paul did not speak in the tongues of angels. No man has.
Having said that, that is not to say that the tongues of angels do not exist or Paul would not have used that term? So then, what are they? An angel is a ministering spirit, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation (Heb.1:14). There are heirs of salvation in almost every nation. An angel would be able to speak the language of every nation. They would able to speak that language perfectly, eloquently, without mistake. God made them perfect beings. That is what I believe the tongues of angels to be. And none of us have them.
DHK
"Though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge;"
"Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains,"
"Though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor,"
"Though I give my body to be burned,"
Did Paul understand all mysteries, have all faith to remove mountains, bestow all his goods to feed the poor; did he give his body to be burned? The obvious answer to all of these questions is no. They are all hypothetical. Likewise Paul did not speak in the tongues of angels. No man has.
Having said that, that is not to say that the tongues of angels do not exist or Paul would not have used that term? So then, what are they? An angel is a ministering spirit, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation (Heb.1:14). There are heirs of salvation in almost every nation. An angel would be able to speak the language of every nation. They would able to speak that language perfectly, eloquently, without mistake. God made them perfect beings. That is what I believe the tongues of angels to be. And none of us have them.
DHK
Acts 2 declares they spoke with OTHER TONGUES.
They were called other because the people speaking them did not know them but they were KNOWN TONGUES. Acts 8 said they spoke with tongues but does not say what kind nor does Chapter 19.
It was Paul himself who said he spoke in UNKNOWN TONGUES. UNKNOWN NOT OTHER. The other tongues were tongues that could be understood by those who speak the language. Unknown tongues are tongues not known by man for Paul said when he prayed in tongues he prayed great mysteries. If he was praying in other tongues and a person was present who could understand the language then it would not have been a mystery.
There are thousands of languages on this Earth and I imagine if an angel visited every place where these languages were spoken they would speak to the people in that language so why is it wrong to believe Angels may have their own language. We know that Paul was taken either in spirit or vision to the third Heaven where the throne of God was. Paul could have heard angels speaking in a language he did not recognize or understand. God showed him mysteries that he could not reveal in his lifetime.
They were called other because the people speaking them did not know them but they were KNOWN TONGUES. Acts 8 said they spoke with tongues but does not say what kind nor does Chapter 19.
It was Paul himself who said he spoke in UNKNOWN TONGUES. UNKNOWN NOT OTHER. The other tongues were tongues that could be understood by those who speak the language. Unknown tongues are tongues not known by man for Paul said when he prayed in tongues he prayed great mysteries. If he was praying in other tongues and a person was present who could understand the language then it would not have been a mystery.
There are thousands of languages on this Earth and I imagine if an angel visited every place where these languages were spoken they would speak to the people in that language so why is it wrong to believe Angels may have their own language. We know that Paul was taken either in spirit or vision to the third Heaven where the throne of God was. Paul could have heard angels speaking in a language he did not recognize or understand. God showed him mysteries that he could not reveal in his lifetime.
hrhema,
Please click on the link below. When you see this verse you will certain underlined words. The words that are underlined were in the original texts, the words that are not WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXTS.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi
Paul never said the word unknown. No other translation seems to interpret it this way, not even the New King James version. The word unknown in this context was never spoken by Paul.
Do you insist the KJV is better than the texts it was translated from or do you just refuse to admit this truth? It has been spoken to you over and over again. Please address this issue.
~Lorelei
Please click on the link below. When you see this verse you will certain underlined words. The words that are underlined were in the original texts, the words that are not WERE NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TEXTS.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi
Paul never said the word unknown. No other translation seems to interpret it this way, not even the New King James version. The word unknown in this context was never spoken by Paul.
Do you insist the KJV is better than the texts it was translated from or do you just refuse to admit this truth? It has been spoken to you over and over again. Please address this issue.
~Lorelei
1 Corinthians 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God
Look carefully, friends and neighbors. If I speak in a tongue that's not known to anyone in the crowd, then I speak in an unknown tongue. If I speak in a tongue that I don't know, then I speak in an unknown tongue. This does not automatically mean I speak in the tongue of angels. If I speak in Russian in a crowd of people who don't understand Russian, then I speak in an unknown tongue.
This verse has been construed to mean the tongue of angels because of the previous reference in 1 Corinthians 13--which, as you'll recall, has been put into serious question because Paul couples speaking in the so-called tongue of angels with other events that he did NOT do (such as burning his own body).
Notice that the verse does NOT say "speaketh unto angels," but "speaketh unto God." I believe we can all agree that God has no need for any particular language, does He?
Notice v.10 of the same chapter: "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world" (emphasis mine); Paul didn't say "in the world or the heavens."
Don't forget that Paul also clearly defines what the gift of tongues is for: "v.22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" (again, emphasis mine).
And finally, don't forget that the entire book of 1 Corinthians is a rebuke to the church at Corinth. There were many, many things going wrong at this church: fornication, the Lord's Supper being used as an excuse to party down, people in the church squabbling with each other, and, of course, the misuse of the spiritual gifts.
Look carefully, friends and neighbors. If I speak in a tongue that's not known to anyone in the crowd, then I speak in an unknown tongue. If I speak in a tongue that I don't know, then I speak in an unknown tongue. This does not automatically mean I speak in the tongue of angels. If I speak in Russian in a crowd of people who don't understand Russian, then I speak in an unknown tongue.
This verse has been construed to mean the tongue of angels because of the previous reference in 1 Corinthians 13--which, as you'll recall, has been put into serious question because Paul couples speaking in the so-called tongue of angels with other events that he did NOT do (such as burning his own body).
Notice that the verse does NOT say "speaketh unto angels," but "speaketh unto God." I believe we can all agree that God has no need for any particular language, does He?
Notice v.10 of the same chapter: "There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world" (emphasis mine); Paul didn't say "in the world or the heavens."
Don't forget that Paul also clearly defines what the gift of tongues is for: "v.22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not" (again, emphasis mine).
And finally, don't forget that the entire book of 1 Corinthians is a rebuke to the church at Corinth. There were many, many things going wrong at this church: fornication, the Lord's Supper being used as an excuse to party down, people in the church squabbling with each other, and, of course, the misuse of the spiritual gifts.
Of course my link doesn't work properly. What you have to do is type in the verse and then click find. Then it should take you to the page that has the text. It won't let me directly post a link from that page, I am not certain why. Sorry about that
~Lorelei
~Lorelei
"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. I CORINTHIAN 14:2. kjv.
Lorelei> This is the King James Version of I Corinthian 14:2. It says unknown tongues. It also
states that that person speaketh not unto men but unto God for no man understandeth him. Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
I have answered you with the King James Version.
Please do not respond to something unless you are going to respond acurrately. This plainly proves that there is a language that is unto God himself and that no man can understand it. Only when God himself grants the interpretation to what is being said.
Lorelei> This is the King James Version of I Corinthian 14:2. It says unknown tongues. It also
states that that person speaketh not unto men but unto God for no man understandeth him. Howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
I have answered you with the King James Version.
Please do not respond to something unless you are going to respond acurrately. This plainly proves that there is a language that is unto God himself and that no man can understand it. Only when God himself grants the interpretation to what is being said.
hrhema,
I am sorry you worship what the translators said, but if you look at the word unknown you will find that is in italics. My KJV says this:
Even so, you now have ignored everything Don has said. This in no way plainly proves that the language was not known to any man. It only proves that it was not known to the person who was speaking it.
If it were never to be known, then how could one pray for an interpretation? Upon learning the interpretation we should be able to learn angelic tongues, should we not? You speak babble then pray for what that babble means, you now KNOW how to speak angelic tongues. It is now known to you. According to Paul who said we must always pray to interpret, a tongue should never remain unknown for long!
Here, Paul is clearly saying that speaking in a tongue that you don't know is useless, you are speaking into the air and it serves absolutely no purpose.
~Lorelei
I am sorry you worship what the translators said, but if you look at the word unknown you will find that is in italics. My KJV says this:
Even the translators acknowledged that the word was not in the original languages, that is why it is in italics.Italic type in the text (example: God saw that it was good) indicates words that are not found in the original languages
Even so, you now have ignored everything Don has said. This in no way plainly proves that the language was not known to any man. It only proves that it was not known to the person who was speaking it.
If it were never to be known, then how could one pray for an interpretation? Upon learning the interpretation we should be able to learn angelic tongues, should we not? You speak babble then pray for what that babble means, you now KNOW how to speak angelic tongues. It is now known to you. According to Paul who said we must always pray to interpret, a tongue should never remain unknown for long!
Here, Paul is clearly saying that speaking in a tongue that you don't know is useless, you are speaking into the air and it serves absolutely no purpose.
Either way your argument does NOT prove there is such a thing as an angelic tongue.1 Cor 14:6-9
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?
7 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped?
8 For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?
9 So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification.
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.
KJV
~Lorelei
One more observation on the unkown=angelic tongues issue.
Paul clearly used the wording "tongues of angels" to make a point in 1 Corinthians 13:1. If that were the same thing he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14:2, not too many verses later, why didn't he just call it what it was? A tongue of angels.
He didn't say it, because the tongue he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14 was not an angelic tongue, or otherwise he would have said
On another note:
Paul's vision that has been referred to is merely more conjecture.
~Lorelei
Paul clearly used the wording "tongues of angels" to make a point in 1 Corinthians 13:1. If that were the same thing he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14:2, not too many verses later, why didn't he just call it what it was? A tongue of angels.
He didn't say it, because the tongue he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 14 was not an angelic tongue, or otherwise he would have said
But he didn't say this, did he? No, because there is no such thing as an angelic tongue. There is no biblical reason to assume that these two tongues are related. No where in the text is that correlation made, it is only assumed by those who have been taught to believe so.1 Cor 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an angelic tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
KJV
On another note:
Paul's vision that has been referred to is merely more conjecture.
It is yet another verse taken out of context. No where are tongues mentioned anywhere in this statement. It was what he saw that he could not speak about, it had nothing to do with tongues.2 Cor 12:4
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.
KJV
~Lorelei
This chapter of Corinthians was not altogether just a rebuke but Paul was teaching these people about the gifts of the spirit.
Also if you study the story about the Tower of Babel it was called this because when God changed everyone's language those who did not understand the person next to them thought they were babbling. THis is why people on this thread and other threads say people who speak in tongues are babbling.
To say that all tongues is for unbelievers contradicts what Paul taught. Paul himself said he prayed in tongues. Prayer is unto God not unbelievers. Paul said he sang in tongues.
Again the same thing.
THere is a gift called Tongues and interpretation. This gift is when a person gives a message in tongues and another gives the interpretation supernaturally. Then there is the
tongues they spoke in when filled with the Holy Ghost and then there is the tongues Paul said he used when he prayed.
Cessassionists can say what ever they want to say and take scripture out of context. You can deny that the supernatural exists but it doesn't change things. So many of you claim that the perfect that is to come is the Bible when the Bible had not even been written when Paul said this. You grasp at straws that blow in the wind.
When people throw out the challenge to prove this scripture was talking about the Bible they cannot yet they hold on to their view point.
Also if you study the story about the Tower of Babel it was called this because when God changed everyone's language those who did not understand the person next to them thought they were babbling. THis is why people on this thread and other threads say people who speak in tongues are babbling.
To say that all tongues is for unbelievers contradicts what Paul taught. Paul himself said he prayed in tongues. Prayer is unto God not unbelievers. Paul said he sang in tongues.
Again the same thing.
THere is a gift called Tongues and interpretation. This gift is when a person gives a message in tongues and another gives the interpretation supernaturally. Then there is the
tongues they spoke in when filled with the Holy Ghost and then there is the tongues Paul said he used when he prayed.
Cessassionists can say what ever they want to say and take scripture out of context. You can deny that the supernatural exists but it doesn't change things. So many of you claim that the perfect that is to come is the Bible when the Bible had not even been written when Paul said this. You grasp at straws that blow in the wind.
When people throw out the challenge to prove this scripture was talking about the Bible they cannot yet they hold on to their view point.
This chapter of Corinthians was not altogether just a rebuke but Paul was teaching these people about the gifts of the spirit.
Also if you study the story about the Tower of Babel it was called this because when God changed everyone's language those who did not understand the person next to them thought they were babbling. THis is why people on this thread and other threads say people who speak in tongues are babbling.
To say that all tongues is for unbelievers contradicts what Paul taught. Paul himself said he prayed in tongues. Prayer is unto God not unbelievers. Paul said he sang in tongues.
Again the same thing.
THere is a gift called Tongues and interpretation. This gift is when a person gives a message in tongues and another gives the interpretation supernaturally. Then there is the
tongues they spoke in when filled with the Holy Ghost and then there is the tongues Paul said he used when he prayed.
Cessassionists can say what ever they want to say and take scripture out of context. You can deny that the supernatural exists but it doesn't change things. So many of you claim that the perfect that is to come is the Bible when the Bible had not even been written when Paul said this. You grasp at straws that blow in the wind.
When people throw out the challenge to prove this scripture was talking about the Bible they cannot yet they hold on to their view point.
Also if you study the story about the Tower of Babel it was called this because when God changed everyone's language those who did not understand the person next to them thought they were babbling. THis is why people on this thread and other threads say people who speak in tongues are babbling.
To say that all tongues is for unbelievers contradicts what Paul taught. Paul himself said he prayed in tongues. Prayer is unto God not unbelievers. Paul said he sang in tongues.
Again the same thing.
THere is a gift called Tongues and interpretation. This gift is when a person gives a message in tongues and another gives the interpretation supernaturally. Then there is the
tongues they spoke in when filled with the Holy Ghost and then there is the tongues Paul said he used when he prayed.
Cessassionists can say what ever they want to say and take scripture out of context. You can deny that the supernatural exists but it doesn't change things. So many of you claim that the perfect that is to come is the Bible when the Bible had not even been written when Paul said this. You grasp at straws that blow in the wind.
When people throw out the challenge to prove this scripture was talking about the Bible they cannot yet they hold on to their view point.
Originally posted by hrhema:
Paul himself said he prayed in tongues. Prayer is unto God not unbelievers. Paul said he sang in tongues.
Again the same thing.
If Paul said this tongue that he prayed and sang in was only praise to God, why did he care whether or not those around him could understand him?
~Lorelei1 Cor 14:13-17
13 For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind. 16 If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say "Amen" to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying? 17 You may be giving thanks well enough, but the other man is not edified.
NIV