Tongues

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />When the apostles started speaking in tongues in Acts 2, it isn't mentioned what they said; but it is mentioned that the listeners--the unbelievers--were amazed, and thus paid attention to what Peter said next, and 3,000 of them called upon the name of the Lord and were saved; thus, positive.

In Acts 10, we find specifically stated that the Gentiles magnified God, amazing the Jews witnessing the event; thus, positive.

</font>[/QUOTE]Don, I know you are probably frustrated with me. And if you are as frustrated with me as much as I am with Dell than I'm really really Sorry....

haha

 

[Don]

Not frustrated with you at all, Brian.

Now Singer, on the other hand....

 

[Don]

Originally posted by Singer:
Don:
Longs posts don't get read much. If they did, you'd be a Sabbath keeper
now with all the bible proof that you can't rightfully disobey God's Will which
is that you are to obey ALL the laws including the Fourth one.

In a word: HUH? Are you trying to say that my last few posts have been too long?

I'd have to respond with: Go back and check out a few of yours.

" To my knowledge, only the Bible can make that claim."

** Easy to say, but you don't believe the scriptures we give you either.

Apparently you can't tell the difference between discussing the scriptures and not believing them. I don't believe what you're telling me about tongues, because I read the same scriptures plus others and don't see the same meaning. Such as, "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. Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church."

When you post a verse that seems to show that we should speak in an tongue of angels to personally receive all that God has to offer, I in turn find twice as many verses that say our emphasis should be on the edification of others, and not on any motivation that could be labeled selfish. Remember the parable of the talents, and what happened to the servant who hid his in the ground (kept it all to himself)?

" Attacking me only means you can't actually show that I'm wrong, and therefore I must be right."

** Children justify their means in the same way.

Exactly. So show me that I'm misinterpreting the verses by showing the entire passage and its context. Prove to me that I'm wrong with my analysis of the article you posted a link to. Don't just tell me I'm wrong or that I'm attacking God, because that's what children do.

"Nah, don't think so. Because you still haven't answered, WHY wasn't Phillip enough? Why did the Holy Spirit not come upon them until the apostles laid hands on them?"

** Because water baptism won't bring the Holy Spirit..like I said twice before.

Singer, are you intentionally being obtuse? The question has nothing to do with water baptism!

Why couldn't Phillip lay hands on the Samaritans, allowing them to receive the Holy Ghost? Why did they have to wait for the apostles?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:
Oneness, you agreed with scripture when you stated that tongues are a sign for unbelievers.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like I can get a straight answer from any of your fellow tongues-speakers. So let me ask you part 2 of this question: If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, then why do believers speak in tongues when they're by themselves? Think about it. Either tongues are a sign for unbelievers, or they're not a sign for just unbelievers; but Paul unequivocably states they're a sign for unbelievers, doesn't he? And God inspired Paul to write those words, didn't He? So it isn't just Paul saying that tongues are a sign for unbelievers; it's God Himself, isn't it?

You then asked if it was a positive sign or a negative sign; I say let scripture speak for itself.

When the apostles started speaking in tongues in Acts 2, it isn't mentioned what they said; but it is mentioned that the listeners--the unbelievers--were amazed, and thus paid attention to what Peter said next, and 3,000 of them called upon the name of the Lord and were saved; thus, positive.

In Acts 10, we find specifically stated that the Gentiles magnified God, amazing the Jews witnessing the event; thus, positive.

Neither Acts 8 nor Acts 19 make reference to what the listeners heard when the recipients of the gift of the Holy Ghost spoke in tongues.

When the apostles started speaking in tongues in Acts 2, it isn't mentioned what they said; but it is mentioned that the listeners--the unbelievers--were amazed, and thus paid attention to what Peter said next, and 3,000 of them called upon the name of the Lord and were saved;

Don it did say they were amazed but the next sentence says “AND WERE IN DOUBT saying one to another…(Acts 2:12 posted below)

Is Doubt a good thing? Is God the author or confusion? No.


Acts 2:12
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

thus, positive.

1 Corth 21:24
21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:


Is it positive? The bible says that tongues are for a sign. What kind of a sign? In verse 23 Paul lets us know that if an unbeliever come into a church and hears everyone speaking in tongues they are going to think everyone is mad. Is that going to profit the unbeliever? NO!

Tongues for the unbeliever is more of a Sign saying you are unlearned and you don’t know what is going on, thus it will cause confusion and doubt to the unbeliever. Read Paul’s next statement in verse 24. He is talking about prophesy. Who is Prophesy for? Is it not for the believer(1 Corth 14:22)? But what does he say at the end? He says if all prophesy and there come in one that BELEVETH NOT(unbeliever), or one unlearned, he is convinced of all.

So tongues to an unbeliever is a Negative sign.

Think about it. Either tongues are a sign for unbelievers, or they're not a sign for just unbelievers; but Paul unequivocably states they're a sign for unbelievers, doesn't he?

Now lets look at Acts 10:44-46
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

The bible tell us that the Jews which BELIEVED were astonished, as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with Tongues.

Now when the Gentiles received the Holy Ghost was it a Sign to the Gentiles b/c they were unbelievers? No! They were believers also.

Were the Jews Unbelievers? No! the bible clearly says “The Jews which BELIEVED were astonished. So not only is tongues a sign for unbelievers its also a sign for those that believe letting them know others have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

And God inspired Paul to write those words, didn't He? So it isn't just Paul saying that tongues are a sign for unbelievers; it's God Himself, isn't it?

You are right my friend in that Paul wrote those words. You are right in that God inspired him. But maybe its our understanding that not inline with what Paul meant.

So let me ask you part 2 of this question: If tongues are a sign for unbelievers, then why do believers speak in tongues when they're by themselves?

B/c tongues is not JUST a sign. And we also get to speak in tongues when we are alone b/c that what God chooses for us. Paul said “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaks unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries (1 Corth 14:2). Paul goes onto say “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…” (1 Corth 14:2)

Also let me point out to you that Paul said He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaks unto God (1 Corth 14:2). Now there is proof that there is two types of tongues. One is to speak unto God and one is Tongues of interpretation (1 Corth 14:13) Even then it says for the one who speaks be the one who prays for the interpretation. Tongues is not just to break a language barrier with your neighboring country.

Paul even went as far as saying “I would that ye all Speak with tongues” (1 Corth 14:5). He was not telling them that it was wrong after that when he said “but rather ye prophesy”. His whole point was that everything needs to be decent and in order (1 Corth 14:40)

Paul said “I THANK my God that I speak with tongues more than ye all (1 Corth 14:18)


Lord bless you my friend

 

[Don]

The good thing about all this is the constant challenge to continue reasoning with each other, and to search out the scriptures.

Oneness, you posted:

Don it did say they were amazed but the next sentence says “AND WERE IN DOUBT saying one to another…(Acts 2:12 posted below)
Is Doubt a good thing? Is God the author or confusion? No.
Acts 2:12
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

I draw your attention to v.11 immediately preceeding: "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." I missed that part when I was writing my original response.

So why were they in doubt? Because they didn't understand why this group of people who shouldn't know all these languages were suddenly able to speak fluently in them.

And don't forget: they were speaking the wonderful works of God. How can that ever be anything but a positive?

In verse 23 Paul lets us know that if an unbeliever come into a church and hears everyone speaking in tongues they are going to think everyone is mad.

Context, my friend. Put this in the context of the entire passage, meaning, look at v.7 -- 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? And v.16-17 -- 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? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

When the gift of the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles in Acts 2, they spoke in the tongues of the unbelievers present, glorifying and magnifying God.

Right now, I can't explain this any better. Going on....

The bible tell us that the Jews which BELIEVED were astonished, as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with Tongues.

Yep, the Jews who believed...did not believe that the Gentiles had any part in the kingdom of God.

So not only is tongues a sign for unbelievers its also a sign for those that believe letting them know others have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

In this case, I'll meet you halfway. The Holy Ghost fell upon these Gentiles to show the Jews that the Gentiles could partake of the kingdom of God.

Paul goes onto say “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…” (1 Corth 14:2)

You are partially mis-quoting 1 Corinthians 14:2. Why? The rest of the verse says "for no man understandeth him." And then we find v.4 -- "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

You brought up v.5, but you only partially quoted that one as well (“I would that ye all Speak with tongues”); the rest of the verse reads "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."

And then we find v.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?

That "except" is important, because it means that tongues by itself is nothing; it must be accompanied with revelation, knowledge, prophesying, or doctrine. Paul emphasizes this in v.7 -- "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?"

You bring up the fact that Paul said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"; again, a partial misquote, because the very next verse completes the thought: "YET in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Tongues a positive or negative sign? Any time we magnify God, is that positive or negative?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:
The good thing about all this is the constant challenge to continue reasoning with each other, and to search out the scriptures.

Oneness, you posted: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Don it did say they were amazed but the next sentence says “AND WERE IN DOUBT saying one to another…(Acts 2:12 posted below)
Is Doubt a good thing? Is God the author or confusion? No.
Acts 2:12
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

I draw your attention to v.11 immediately preceeding: "we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." I missed that part when I was writing my original response.

So why were they in doubt? Because they didn't understand why this group of people who shouldn't know all these languages were suddenly able to speak fluently in them.

And don't forget: they were speaking the wonderful works of God. How can that ever be anything but a positive?

In verse 23 Paul lets us know that if an unbeliever come into a church and hears everyone speaking in tongues they are going to think everyone is mad.

Context, my friend. Put this in the context of the entire passage, meaning, look at v.7 -- 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? And v.16-17 -- 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? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.

When the gift of the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles in Acts 2, they spoke in the tongues of the unbelievers present, glorifying and magnifying God.

Right now, I can't explain this any better. Going on....

The bible tell us that the Jews which BELIEVED were astonished, as many as came with Peter because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with Tongues.

Yep, the Jews who believed...did not believe that the Gentiles had any part in the kingdom of God.

So not only is tongues a sign for unbelievers its also a sign for those that believe letting them know others have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

In this case, I'll meet you halfway. The Holy Ghost fell upon these Gentiles to show the Jews that the Gentiles could partake of the kingdom of God.

Paul goes onto say “He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself…” (1 Corth 14:2)

You are partially mis-quoting 1 Corinthians 14:2. Why? The rest of the verse says "for no man understandeth him." And then we find v.4 -- "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

You brought up v.5, but you only partially quoted that one as well (“I would that ye all Speak with tongues”); the rest of the verse reads "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."

And then we find v.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?

That "except" is important, because it means that tongues by itself is nothing; it must be accompanied with revelation, knowledge, prophesying, or doctrine. Paul emphasizes this in v.7 -- "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?"

You bring up the fact that Paul said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"; again, a partial misquote, because the very next verse completes the thought: "YET in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Tongues a positive or negative sign? Any time we magnify God, is that positive or negative? </font>[/QUOTE]Very well put Don, I will give you my thoughts tomorrow when i get to work

God bless

 

[Singer]

(Don)
The good thing about all this is the constant challenge to continue
reasoning with each other, and to search out the scriptures.

(Singer)
Think of all the reasoning going on in the world of denominations.
We have SDA's on here reasoning via the bible that the rest
of us couldn't possibly be saved because we're disobeying
God and obedience is the key. Catholics reason via the
bible that they are the church that Christ established on
earth and the rest of us are disobedient. Cults reason that
they are the chosen people. Trouble is.....who
has the final word besides God. And what does God really
require..? A certain day to worship or a certain church to
worship in..? I say those things do not matter
and the issue of tongues and the Trinity and whether
Paul stuttered or not is not going to affect our salvation.
Searching out the scriptures might be futile beyond
the salvation issue and yet that one is not clear to everyone either.

(Don)
Not frustrated with you at all, Brian.
Now Singer, on the other hand....

(Singer)
Don't feel alone, Don.

(Singer)
You have not responded to this scripture:
Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities:
for we know not what we should pray for as we ought:
but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered.

(Don)
Is this supposed to support speaking in tongues?
Look at the last few words: cannot be uttered.
At the most, this only supports groaning.

(Singer)
That was a cheap answer, but expand on it if you will.
Let me use yourself as an example:

Don doesn't know what to pray for as he ought.
The Holy Spirit will intercede for him with groanings.
Will Don be aware of that or even involved in that, or is it
something that is done strictly in a spiritual realm somewhere
off in heaven amongst the spiritworld ---unknown by Don ?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Singer:

Someone remarked that Paul could not have known that
anything like a bible would ever be written. So, I wonder how
he could have meant that. The Word of God as far as Paul was
concerned would have referred to Jesus. Paul knew Him to
be the manifestation of the "Word". Also, the tongues gift
was mentioned in the same verses as other gifts. (Discernment,
knowledge etc.) They surely wouldn't cease with tongues would
they? As for a self-edifying prayer language, I say once
again that ...that is what I received for a one-time event.
I do not consider myself as having the gift of tongues or the
gift of interpretation. I strictly received a blessing from God
(like the angels singing for the old man) and still am in amazement
24 years later as to what happened to me through prayer
and praise and bible reading. Study more on the term "pray in
the spirit" or "pray with the spirit". One verse to start with is :

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know
not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself
maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

Do a little research there and get back to me.
Others please respond too.
Thanks
Singer [/b]

(2 Tim 4:13 KJV) The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Paul knew that Scripture was being written, and he knew that the Apostles, including himself, were the instruments that God was using to write down the Scriptures. Yes there would be a Bible. This is precisely what he meant by 1Cor.13:8-13. “When that which is perfect (the Bible) is come, then that which is in part (prophecy and other spiritual gifts) will be done away.”


2Pet.3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Peter considered the words of the apostles of equal importance as the prophets of the Old Testament. “Be mindful of the words spoken of the prophets…and of us the apostles.” Then later in the same chapter he says:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter knew that many of the writings of Paul were Scripture, and refers to them as such. He refers to Paul’s “epistles…as they do also the other scriptures.” If Peter knew that Paul’s epistles were Scripture, I am sure that Paul himself knew that the Lord was speaking to him, and the things that he was writing down were the very words of God.

1 Tim 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
--This is an example of one of his epistles. He writes by the commandment of the Lord.
All of the Apostles were acutely aware the Scripture was in the process of being canonized at the time of the Apostles. The early churches accepted many of the books as Scriptures soon after they were written. So the Corinthian Church, for example, may have had access to the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle of James, both of which were written quite early.
I believe that all the gifts listed in 1Cor.12, ceased. However, I also believe that they were uniquely given for that period of time, and were special supernatural gifts. Even gifts as “helps, discernment, administration,” etc. were special gifts. They were gifts supernaturally given for a special period of time, for a special purpose. Take teaching for example. I teach. Some say that I have a gift for teaching. I don’t believe I have the “gift” of teaching; I don’t believe it exists. If I have anything, it may be a natural talent or an ability that I have learned: one or the other. I have two sons that can play the piano. One of them has a natural ability, and learned with very few lessons. The other struggled, and learned to play the hard way through much practice. Just as no one has the “gift of healing” today, my son doesn’t have the “gift of piano playing” today. These spiritual gifts were not just talents. They were supernatural gifts given in the first century when the early church was growing, in its infancy, and when the Word of God was not complete. Tongues, Prophecy, and Revelatory knowledge all had to do with the revelation of God’s Word.
The “gift of knowledge” is not just common knowledge. It is revelatory knowledge, special knowledge given by God, at that time because the Bible was not yet complete. It was revelation, not just any knowledge.

Rom.8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
--The previous verses talk about our suffering and how with patience do wait for the redemption of our bodies. Heaven will be so wonderful. But until then we pray. Jesus promised to send us a Comforter, the Holy Spirit, who will assist us. Paul says he helps our infirmities. Sometimes we suffer to such a degree we don’t know what we should pray for, but the Holy Spirit helps us. He brings to mind the things we ought to pray for. He Himself intercedes for us. How? “With groanings which cannot be uttered.” In other words, it is the Holy Spirit’s groanings, and they cannot be uttered. How can you try to imitate or try to speak something that is impossible to utter? They CANNOT be uttered. It is impossible for those groanings (however you may define them) to be uttered, pronounced, said, voiced, or whatever. This would be the most ridiculous verse to use in defence for speaking in tongues because it says exactly the opposite. They cannot be uttered.
It is a promise of the Holy Spirit to help in prayer, and nothing more. Again, tongues was a gift given to first century Christians, given to the church, to be used for the public edification of the church, and never to be used as a private prayer language. It was also used in conjunction with unbelieving Jews to whom it was a sign (1Cor.14:21,22) It was a sign for them. If there were no unbelieving Jews present the whole issue of tongues is moot.
DHK

 

[Don]

Well, Singer, I think DHK pretty much covered it.

Now how about those other points I brought up? Such as Phillip and the apostles? You became strangely silent on that one....

[ February 21, 2003, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Don ]

 

[Briguy]

Hi Brian, you asked:
""I we use your difinition of prophesy than dosen't eveyone have that gift. We all can speak before things.""

No, we are to share Jesus in our own way. In a way that suits our personalities and our abilities. Prophecy is speaking in front of people. Some people just have a special way of sharing the gospel and discipling believers. They can talk for hours and not break stride. There are many people like this and I believe it is a gift God gives freely and that would make sense as He says in 1Cor.14 how important of a gift it is. I do not have this gift. I don't speak well before others at all. I am pressed to do a 20 minute study with middle schoolers, I just don't have a gift or talent for speaking in front of others. Hope that answers your questions. If prophecy is for believers mainly, for them to be encouraged it has to be what I say. Can you imagine someone standing up and predicting future events every time believers were together? People would be running around in fear all the time if bad things were predicted for them. That is not a reasonable assumption and we know from the text that prophecy is important aspect of "worship".
Hope that makes sense.

hrhema, There is no scripture that remotely indicates that there are two gift of tongues. Based on your assumption there could be all sorts of other gifts that we do not know about.


In Christ,
Brian

 

[Don]

BriGuy, you've been extremely patient. Good on ya.

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Briguy:
Hi Brian, you asked:
""I we use your difinition of prophesy than dosen't eveyone have that gift. We all can speak before things.""

No, we are to share Jesus in our own way. In a way that suits our personalities and our abilities. Prophecy is speaking in front of people. Some people just have a special way of sharing the gospel and discipling believers. They can talk for hours and not break stride. There are many people like this and I believe it is a gift God gives freely and that would make sense as He says in 1Cor.14 how important of a gift it is. I do not have this gift. I don't speak well before others at all. I am pressed to do a 20 minute study with middle schoolers, I just don't have a gift or talent for speaking in front of others. Hope that answers your questions. If prophecy is for believers mainly, for them to be encouraged it has to be what I say. Can you imagine someone standing up and predicting future events every time believers were together? People would be running around in fear all the time if bad things were predicted for them. That is not a reasonable assumption and we know from the text that prophecy is important aspect of "worship".
Hope that makes sense.

hrhema, There is no scripture that remotely indicates that there are two gift of tongues. Based on your assumption there could be all sorts of other gifts that we do not know about.


In Christ,
Brian

Brian, so when you say “to speak before” are you meaning to speak in front of people or a congregation?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:

[qb] originally posted by Don

So why were they in doubt? Because they didn't understand why this group of people who shouldn't know all these languages were suddenly able to speak fluently in them.

And don't forget: they were speaking the wonderful works of God. How can that ever be anything but a positive?

That’s right Don but at first did it not cause confusion? They just chose to stick around and listen to what they had to say.

Now, you tell me were these tongues that the apostles spoke, spoken to break a language barrier?

You bring up the fact that Paul said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all"; again, a partial misquote, because the very next verse completes the thought: "YET in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue."

Don I was not trying to take the verse out of context I was just using it to say that just b/c we speak in tongues does not mean that an interpreter needs to be present. You asked “why is it if tongues if for the unbeliever, why do we speak in tongues while we are alone”.

Tongues a positive or negative sign? Any time we magnify God, is that positive or negative

You are right, when we magnify God it can be nothing but a positive sign. Paul said tongues is a sign for the unbeliever (1 Corth 14:22). The next verse tells us if the unbeliever comes in and hears everyone speaking in tongues he is going to think everyone is mad (1 Corth 14:23). Thus it is going to turn him away. This shows that the unbeliever in unlearned it what is going on. This shows us that by people praising God out of order will turn some away b/c they are unlearned.

Short illustration: I want even use tongues.

Lets say me and my friends are in a place worshipping God. The Keyboard is playing, drums are being beat, people are singing in microphones. To some that is confusion. Is it wrong to do those things? No (Psalms 150). But to some that is a Negative sign.

When the Apostles were in Jerusalem speaking in tongues, what do you think would have happened if the onlookers decided to stop at their doubt and say these guys are mad? Some even said these guys are Drunk (Acts 2:13). If they chose not to listen they would have went away with a bitter taste in their mouths having a negative outlook on the church b/c they chose TO STAY unlearned.

And my point is this, Some look at the Pentecostals like we are the craziest unlearned bunch of loons b/c we worship God Emotionally and are not ashamed to do so. Is that wrong that we do that? Does that cause people to say we are mad? Of course it does b/c they don’t understand why.

Personally I cant understand why people think its ok for to stand up jump, fight, yell, spit and hollar for their favorite star. But when their Savior does something miraculous they have to sit down and shut up. Could it be that some are just unlearned or that they are just unbelievers?

Now my last quetion on that. Does that mean we have to stop worshipping, praising, and magnifying God just b/c we have someone who is an unbeliever? No, of course not. It just means that we do things in order. Thats what Paul was getting at. (1 Corth 15:40)

God bless

 

[Singer]

Don:

Good morning..I had a long post prepared for you this day and
the old computer ate it for breakfast. (Was than an act of God or
Satan) ??

Actually, I had you guys all straightened out and now I lost it. haha
I do have a long weekend (3 days of musical performances) and also
my wife has been looking at me sideways when I'm rippin' through
my bible and typing and making remarks like "I just wish I had my
husband back". Do you suppose I'm overdoing the bible thing...?

Anyhow I still wear the pants here, so give me again that question
about Peter and Philip and the Apostles...sorry, I've lost it in the maze.

As for DHK saying it all,...I don't agree, cuz I ain't done yet.

1 Cor l3:9 says faith is a manifestation of the spirit and vs 10 includes
working of miracles, prophecy, discerning of spirits, tongues and
interpretation of tongues. They are also called gifts.

1 Cor l4:1 says to follow after charity and desire spiritual gifts.
Hey guys....charity is in the same sentence and remark by Paul
Can you honestly say that spiritual gifts have ceased without
saying that charity has ceased?

If you're correct in saying that the gifts were only for the time before
that which is "perfect" is come, and that the bible is that "perfect"
thing, then charity has also ceased with tongues.

If Jesus is that "perfect" thing, then charity and tongues is
still for today.

Gotta run...wife is hollerin'....................................................

 

[Don]

From Oneness:

That’s right Don but at first did it not cause confusion? They just chose to stick around and listen to what they had to say.

Don't get sidetracked on the confuson issue, Brian; they were confounded (confused) and amazed, and they marvelled, saying to each other, "Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?" (see v.6-7)

If someone you knew were from Russian, and you knew they didn't speak a lick of your native tongue, suddenly started speaking fluently in your native tongue, wouldn't you be confused? Wouldn't you ask "Hey, when did you learn English?" (or whatever your native tongue is) And the result? They sat up and took notice, because this wasn't a normal thing; and Peter was able to preach to them, and 3,000 souls were saved. THAT'S what's being described here, not any negative effect. Therefore, tongues here were a sign to the unbeliever.

Now, you tell me were these tongues that the apostles spoke, spoken to break a language barrier?

Nope; if that's all it were, then it wouldn't actually be a holy gift that made people sit up an take notice.

Lets say me and my friends are in a place worshipping God. The Keyboard is playing, drums are being beat, people are singing in microphones. To some that is confusion. Is it wrong to do those things? No (Psalms 150). But to some that is a Negative sign.

Somewhat disagree. If the keyboard, drums, and singing are being done in harmony, there is no confusion. Some people see that as being worldly, and thus negative.

When the Apostles were in Jerusalem speaking in tongues, what do you think would have happened if the onlookers decided to stop at their doubt and say these guys are mad? Some even said these guys are Drunk (Acts 2:13). If they chose not to listen they would have went away with a bitter taste in their mouths having a negative outlook on the church b/c they chose TO STAY unlearned.

Point: Some of the people present DID choose to stay unlearned. It says 3,000 souls were added; was the number of the entire multitude present? Did everyone present get saved? Scripture doesn't say one way or the other, and what both you and I know of human beings, I'd be hard-pressed to say everyone present received the Lord that day...but I praise God for each and every one of the 3,000 that did!

Personally I cant understand why people think its ok for to stand up jump, fight, yell, spit and hollar for their favorite star. But when their Savior does something miraculous they have to sit down and shut up. Could it be that some are just unlearned or that they are just unbelievers?

Or, alternatively, could it be that they took to heart Paul's lesson about being orderly?

As for jumping up and down for their favorite star, I agree; we don't do enough "AMEN-ing" from our pews, we don't do enough praising, and we don't appreciate enough what God has done for us. But that also does NOT mean that we go the opposite route, and let ourselves be ruled by our emotion.

Brian, are you a sheep? That's what each of us should ascribe to be: A lamb of God. As sheep, we have one shepherd: God. I recently did some research on sheep, and here's a tidbit I found out: When trying to lead a stubborn sheep (and that's most of us humans), you hold it by it's head and guide it.

Not the heart. Not the emotion. By its head.

Interesting analogy, don't you think?

 

[ONENESS]

Originally posted by Don:

Brian, are you a sheep? That's what each of us should ascribe to be: A lamb of God. As sheep, we have one shepherd: God. I recently did some research on sheep, and here's a tidbit I found out: When trying to lead a stubborn sheep (and that's most of us humans), you hold it by it's head and guide it.

Not the heart. Not the emotion. By its head.

Interesting analogy, don't you think?

Very Good analogy. Being a sheep is much better than beeing a goat. You have to push them... LOL

Don please dont mistake that just b/c we are emotional we let our emotions rule us. Although some do. I have learned in the last few years that we can't live for God by what we feel. We have to live for God by what the bible says.

God bless

 

[Singer]

For one who raises sheep, can I make a comment that is backed
by experience.

The 'by far best' way to lead sheep is with a bucket of grain.
A strong voice in calling backed by an enticing and interesting
meal of their favorite (physical ) lunch will get em everytime.
And not just one, but the whole herd. Unbelievers (those who
have never had grain) will follow along just to see what the
excitement is all about. **Pun intended

Anytime a hand is laid on a sheep, he balks. They pull back...
resist. At shearing time they have to be physically drug to the
shears (their wool being the handles whereby you force them
around). Grab him by the head and he'll back up...the opposite
direction you want him to go.

Remember how Jesus said sheep hear their master's voice..?
That's how to move sheep.

The grain is self-edifying by the way
And, the shepherd is edified and the
Lord is praised (edified).
Everyone gains. It's a win-win situation.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Singer:

If you're correct in saying that the gifts were only for the time before
that which is "perfect" is come, and that the bible is that "perfect"
thing, then charity has also ceased with tongues.

1Cor.13:8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Charity or love is not among the spiritual gifts listed in 1Cor.12, and it says specifically here that it will never fail or cease in contradistinction to the gifts of prophecy, tongues, and revelatory knowledge.

If you go back and read one of my previous posts, I explained how all these gifts are contrasted to each other, and how charity is the only permanent gift.
DHK

 

[Singer]

Okay....good point DHK.
But, (can I say ''but") ?

If charity is for all time and the rest of the gifts are not,
why does vs 14:1 say to follow charity and desire spiritual gifts ?

Was the first part (follow charity) for people of all time to do,
yet the second part of the statement (desire gifts) only for the
apostles to do until the time of "that which is perfect shall come"....?

Wasn't this after the ascension? So it could follow then that Paul
was not referring to Jesus as the "perfect", but then why did He even
include the statement to "desire spiritual gifts" if it was a past event
(ceased at the bible writing) and not meant for anyone beyond
that time...?

Worse yet.....could the "perfect" have been Jesus and all the gifts
ceased at the ascension. (Meaning when the Holy Spirit came into
the world...which Jesus referred to as himself).
Or..did the gifts remain in force until the bible was canonized..?
Too many questions.

Then again, I didn't receive the gift of tongues...just the experience
(edification). An answer to prayer.

 

[Don]

Well, apparently I'm not gonna get an answer about Phillip.

So let me go ahead and show you the rest of my cards, and let you know why the situation with Phillip is important to this conversation.

You see, Phillip led the Ethiopian eunuch to the Lord, and baptized him, and then the Lord spirited Phillip away.

In other words, the Ethiopian eunuch never spoke in tongues.