tongues

[DHK]

You are absolutely correct Ed,
All the verses you quoted were from 1Cor.14. In that chapter Paul discusses the true gift of tongues only, not any ecstatic tongue. The gift of tongues, as defined in the Bible, was always, always, an actual language. If it was pagan in its origin it was not obviously not a gift of the Holy Spirit, that which Paul alludes to in 1Cor.12:1-4.
DHK

 

[eschatologist]

"Why would Paul say a translator is needed, if someone can hear it in their own language?"

I agree! Paul was speaking of people being in the same worship service who did not speak the same language. So he was relating that someone needed to be there who spoke the other languages to interpret for them so they could understand and be edified.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I to believe that tongues was always an actual language. These gifts were given by God to people who were not formally taught these languages. Many were Galileans, as some of the apostles were, who were uneducated fisherman. That is what Peter told the crowd to further magnify the power of this event at Pentecost.

So I will try to create an allusion for modern day times to typify how it was for the first century christians that Paul was addressing.

First, maybe you need to put yourselves in another's shoes to understand this.

Picture yourself entering a church in Germany for instance, and you do not speek German and nobody in this church understands English. Now you say a prayer in English:

Who but God understands your prayer at this event?(1Cor.14:2)

Who is getting edified other than the one speaking the prayer in an unknown language?(Cor.14:4)

So naturally the person praying in the unknown tongue needs someone to interpret.(1Cor.14:13)

Your prayer is unfruitfull to others, because when you pray they do not understand what you are saying.(1Cor.14:14)

Who would deny that it is more profitable to speak five words that could be understood in the assembly than ten thousand in a language no one could understand?(1Cor.14:19)

And there must always, no matter how many people there are from other regions, be someone there to interpret. Otherwise there would be some who would not understand and not be edified.(1Cor.14:27)


If there are other language speaking people at a worship service there shoud be some plan made available so that these people can understand and be edified. What many people fail to understand is WHO the audience was and at what TIME that this bible message was delivered! It was written in the first century and the original audience was the first century church. At that time and in that area a diverse group of people lived in a relatively small area, encompassing different races, cultures,regions and people converted from other religions, who at times assembled together to worship(please read Acts 2:5-11).


Who can deny that Acts 2, which was the first account of tongues, was speaking of the many languages as outlined in the passages? So naturally it must be the template to understanding what the Corinthian tongues were. Or you must affirm, then, that there were more than one type of gift of tongues. I do not believe this to be so, but hang my belief on what the bible says about it.

 

[Don]

Ed, there's a difference between ecstatic speaking and an ecstatic language.

Acts 2, which clearly defines the first use of the gift of tongues, clearly states that the apostles ecstatically spoke in languages they didn't normally speak in, yet were clearly understood by those listening.

The only possible reference for an ecstatic language occurs in 1 Corinthians 14:2; but it isn't speaking of an ecstatic language, but a language unknown to any of the listeners. Same as speaking Russian in front of a group of Jews, Muslims, Cubans, and Eskimos.

Other than that, scripture gives no indication of an "ecstatic language", only ecstatic speaking.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
Maybe you misunderstood me. I to believe
that tongues was always an actual language.

I understood you. I do NOT
agree with you. The Gift of speaking
a language you never learned is NOT
the Gift of Unknown Tongues.

Look at the absurdity if you replace "an unknown tongue"
with "a languge they had never heard"
in the verses i mentioned before:

1Co 14:2
For he that speaketh in a languge they had never heard speaketh
not unto men, but unto God: for no man
understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit
he speaketh mysteries.

The langauge they had never heardspeaks to God,
not to man???

1Co 14:4
He that speaketh in a languge they had never heard edifieth
himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Doesn't speaking in a languge they had never heard
edify the person there who understands that human langugae
which the speaker has never heard?

1Co 14:13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in
a languge they had never heard pray that he may interpret.

1Co 14:14
For if I pray in a languge they had never heard,
my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

But is not the understanding of the person who understands
that language fruitful? Of course so.

1Co 14:19
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words
with my understanding, that by my voice
I might teach others also,
than ten thousand words in a languge they had never heard.

Why not speak ten thougnsand words in that language
someone needs, if the Holy Spirit wished it?

1Co 14:27
If any man speak in a languge they had never heard,
let it be by two, or at the most by three,
and that by course; and let one interpret.

Why not speak in as many languages as those there might
know, but which the speaker has never learned?
Should some not be spoken to in their language
just because there are over three different
uncommon languages present?

Yes, there is an unknown language, an unknown tongue,
an unknown speaking which is a gift of God that requries
one present with the Spiritual gift of Translation.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by eschatologist:
Maybe you misunderstood me. I to believe
that tongues was always an actual language.

I understood you. I do NOT
agree with you. The Gift of speaking
a language you never learned is NOT
the Gift of Unknown Tongues.

Look at the absurdity if you replace "an unknown tongue"
with "a languge they had never heard"
in the verses i mentioned before:

1Co 14:2
For he that speaketh in a languge they had never heard speaketh
not unto men, but unto God: for no man
understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit
he speaketh mysteries.</font>[/QUOTE]The key throughout the chapter is one of understanding. The gift os speaking in an unknown language speaks not unto men but unto God.
This is a rebuke. That is why prophecy was the better gift. It could be understood. Tongues was a gift given to the whole church for edification; not just for the selfish use of one individual. Never in the Bible is tongues used for prayer or for self-edification. It was not to be used selfishly, that is for prayer, etc. It was a public gift for the edification of the entire church. All the gifts were for that purpose. Take a look at them:
1. The gift of helps--for helping myself??
2. The gift of miracles--to do miracles for myself??
3. The gift of healing--to heal myself??
4. The gift of administration or governments--so I can govern myself??
And so on...All the gifts were given to the church for the edification of the whole church--never just for one individual. The gift of tongues used for personal prayer is just out of the question.

The langauge they had never heardspeaks to God, not to man???

Right. Therefore don't speak in tongues without an interpreter, and in private. Tongues are for edification for the whole church. This is another rebuke.

1Co 14:4
He that speaketh in a languge they had never heard edifieth
himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

Doesn't speaking in a languge they had never heard
edify the person there who understands that human langugae
which the speaker has never heard?

Edifying your self is selfish, and not the purpose of tongues. That was a rebuke. Look at the rest of verse four: In comparison prophecy edifies the church, therefore prophecy is the greater of the gifts.
Speaking in an unknown language edifies only those who can understand the language that is being spoken. Thus the importance of an interpreter for the rest of the congregation.

1Co 14:13
Wherefore let him that speaketh in
a languge they had never heard pray that he may interpret.

If no one else had the gift of interpretation, then at times the one who had the gift of tongues had to pray for the gift of interpretation as well. Remember understanding is the key.

1Co 14:14
For if I pray in a languge they had never heard,
my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

But is not the understanding of the person who understands
that language fruitful? Of course so.

This is a rebuke. Praying in an unknown language is entirely unfruitful to all, presumably because he is praying silently or quietly to himself. The gift is speaking in tongues, not praying in tongues. Paul said "my understanding is unfruitful." That would include others as well.

1Co 14:19
Yet in the church I had rather speak five words
with my understanding, that by my voice
I might teach others also,
than ten thousand words in a languge they had never heard.

Why not speak ten thougnsand words in that language
someone needs, if the Holy Spirit wished it?

The Holy Spirit does not wish chaos and confusion. God is a God of order. Paul makes it very plain that understanding is the key to edification. Therefore prophecy is the better gift. Their is no fruit in tongues without interpretation. The gift is given for the whole church, not to just one or two individuals in the church. The rule was not to speak at all unless there was an interpreter.

1Co 14:27
If any man speak in a languge they had never heard,
let it be by two, or at the most by three,
and that by course; and let one interpret.

Why not speak in as many languages as those there might
know, but which the speaker has never learned?
Should some not be spoken to in their language
just because there are over three different
uncommon languages present?

Don't get me wrong, but it almost seems as if you are either mocking the Word, or questioning God's authority. The gift of tongues (the authentic gift) was a gift of speaking in a foreign language miraculously. In Corinth this gift was being abused. Many were standing up and speaking in tongues when it was unneccessary for them to do so. The church is for the edification of the saints of God, and there is to be order in the church, as Paul sets forth here. No more than two or three at the most could speak in tongues, and they had to do turn by turn--decently and in order. God is not a God of chaos and confusion.
Remeber that this church was at Corinth, located in Greece itself. Greek was the universal language of the entire known language at the time. It is doubtful that there would be many in the church that would be in actual need of a foreign language. No doubt the occasion did arise. The primary use of tongues is given in verses 21 and 22. It is a sign to the unbelieving Jew. Even upon seeing Gentiles speaking in foreign languages, the gospel, they still would not believe. That is what Isaiah prophesied. That is what came true. Judgement thus came in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed.

Yes, there is an unknown language, an unknown tongue,
an unknown speaking which is a gift of God that requries
one present with the Spiritual gift of Translation.

The unknown tongue or language was always a real language (as in Acts 2--"how hear we every man in our own language). The language was unknown to the one speaking it but known to the one hearing it. Since the congregation was mixed it would need an interpreter so all could understand.
DHK

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I *still* need that monkey wrench Icon.

Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

I agree that selfishness is a *very* bad thing for a Christian to get caught up in.

But, at the same time, if Jesus had never withdrawn to rest up and get refreshed, would He have been as able to minister?

There is a fine line between selfishness and seeking to be built up so that you have something to give back into the Body of Christ.

An illustration I like to use, that can be applied here, is the dead sea. Why is it dead?

Because everything flows in and nothing flows out. The riches all come in become sediment in stagnant waters and decay to uselessness.

Much as Christians who only seek their own betterment and never seek another's highest good.

Again, if I deny myself to the point where I become too poor or too sick to function I then become a burden to the Body of Christ instead of an asset.

This is also true of Spiritual Gifts, for those of us who believe they all remain to today.

Yes, I like to get prayed for. But, I find I get more for myself when I pray for others.

But, I'm rambling. Hopefully, I have not obfuscated my point by redundancy of verbiage.

 

[Ed Edwards]

SpiritualMadMan: "Hopefully, I have not obfuscated
my point by redundancy of verbiage."

I just hope all your words have not hid anything

SpiritualMadMan (several days ago):
"Sorry for being so long-winded."

Appology NOT accepted.
One pre-requisite for an
appology is that an offence occur. No offence occurred
so your appology is NOT acceptable.
What you said needed to have been said.

Now if I could get some Baptitst folk to not strain
at a knat (Pentacostalism) and swallow
a camel (not practice ANY Gifts of the Spirit).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
I *still* need that monkey wrench Icon.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jud 1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

I agree that selfishness is a *very* bad thing for a Christian to get caught up in.

But, at the same time, if Jesus had never withdrawn to rest up and get refreshed, would He have been as able to minister?
</font>[/QUOTE]I like that verse too. Here is a couple of others:
Isaiah 40:31 But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint.

Mark 1:35 And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed.

For one to be spiritually refreshed he must come away into his own solitary place, spend time with God in prayer and in the Word. "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength." To wait is to pray and to prayerfully meditate upon the Word of God.
Jesus spent time in prayer. Not once did Jesus ever speak in tongues, or ever advise anyone to speak in tongues. However, he condemned those that practiced such things and claimed Him as their Lord--for He knew them not. (Mat.7:21-23).

Jesus emphasized spending time alone in prayer.
(Mat.6:5-7) He said that if one would pray alone in secret, then He would reward them openly. He also said to avoid "vain repetions as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." This also seems to be a characteristic of those that speak in tongues--particularly the tongues of today, that which we call gibberish or repetitive nonsense syllables.
Pray in the Spirit; not in tongues.
Be filled with the Spirit; not with tongues.
Pray without ceasing; not with tongues.

Prayer and/or the Holy Spirit do not equate to speaking in tongues.
DHK

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Well, 90-95 percent agreement ain't all that bad!

Unfortunately, 'vain repetitions' can be done in *any* language.

There is a tenuous line between a prayer of petition, like Hannah or the widow in Jesus' parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18), and, vain repetition.

I know I am off track, a bit. But, in the unjust judge even though she would be called repetitious, she could also be called a woman of faith because she knew there was only one source for her help and continued to seek that source for relief.

Vain repetition tends to babble on while continuing to look for alternatives.

Just another two cents...

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:

Jesus emphasized spending time alone in prayer.
(Mat.6:5-7) He said that if one would pray alone in secret, then He would reward them openly. He also said to avoid "vain repetions as the heathen do for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." This also seems to be a characteristic of those that speak in tongues--particularly the tongues of today, that which we call gibberish or repetitive nonsense syllables.
Pray in the Spirit; not in tongues.
Be filled with the Spirit; not with tongues.
Pray without ceasing; not with tongues.

Prayer and/or the Holy Spirit do not equate to speaking in tongues.
DHK [/QB]

DHK, I'd like to ask a question, if I may. You don't have to answer, but I would really like to know if you were ever, at any time, affiliated with any type of Pentecostal/Charismatic church?

This could take in even when you were a child growing up.

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
DHK, I'd like to ask a question, if I may. You don't have to answer, but I would really like to know if you were ever, at any time, affiliated with any type of Pentecostal/Charismatic church?

This could take in even when you were a child growing up.

MEE

No MEE, I have not. I was saved out of Roman Catholicism, and the Lord led me providentially to a fundamental Baptist Church, after two years of being involved with an interdenominational organization which didn't emphasize going to church at all.
Since then I have met many Pentecostals and Charismatics alike. Some of them have been very congenial and polite not emphasizing the aspect of tongues in their lives at all. Some of them have become friends. Others seem to have gone off the deep end. One that I met (for the simple reason that I was a Baptist and opposed to tongues), tried to cast a demon out of me in a very public place--a crowded Christian book store. I have had my share of experiences.
DHK

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MEE:
DHK, I'd like to ask a question, if I may. You don't have to answer, but I would really like to know if you were ever, at any time, affiliated with any type of Pentecostal/Charismatic church?

This could take in even when you were a child growing up.

MEE

No MEE, I have not.

DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks!

MEE

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

One that I met (for the simple reason that I was a Baptist and opposed to tongues), tried to cast a demon out of me in a very public place--a crowded Christian book store.

Ghastly! Glad I wasn't there! I might have had to offer 'it' a piece of my mind I *really* couldn't spare!

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One that I met (for the simple reason that I was a Baptist and opposed to tongues), tried to cast a demon out of me in a very public place--a crowded Christian book store.

Ghastly! Glad I wasn't there! I might have had to offer 'it' a piece of my mind I *really* couldn't spare! </font>[/QUOTE]Well SMM, I would like to have heard the conversation before the person tried to cast a demon out of DHK. Not that I would have approved of such conduct in a public place. Just interested in what was said between the two. Some can get very 'ugly' when they try to express their views. Know what I mean?

MEE

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

I know all too well how people who have their 'foundations' 'touched' can become quite 'ugly'.

I also know that injured 'animals' and 'humans' have a tendency to react from past experience, as you alluded to.

But, unfortunately, I have known Pentecostals whose standard mode of operation would be to 'cast a demon' out of anything or anyone that disagreed with *their* perfect doctrines.

And, for them... It's all perfect...

I know it seems I took DHK's side too soon. But, even though I *am* a Tongue Talking Pentecostal I have had all to similar experiences!

And, you don't quickly forget someone who *should* call you a 'brother' in the Lord yelling at you as a 'demon possessed'.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by SpiritualMadMan:
I know all too well how people who have their 'foundations' 'touched' can become quite 'ugly'.

I also know that injured 'animals' and 'humans' have a tendency to react from past experience, as you alluded to.

But, unfortunately, I have known Pentecostals whose standard mode of operation would be to 'cast a demon' out of anything or anyone that disagreed with *their* perfect doctrines.

And, for them... It's all perfect...

I know it seems I took DHK's side too soon. But, even though I *am* a Tongue Talking Pentecostal I have had all to similar experiences!

And, you don't quickly forget someone who *should* call you a 'brother' in the Lord yelling at you as a 'demon possessed'.

SMM, I wasn't referring to the Pentecostal. Maybe DHK, had a bad experience, but what caused the Pentecostal to want to cast out a demon? Now do you know what I mean?

MEE

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by MEE:
SMM, I wasn't referring to the Pentecostal. Maybe DHK, had a bad experience, but what caused the Pentecostal to want to cast out a demon? Now do you know what I mean?
MEE

MEE, to put things in perspective: The Pentecostal that introduced me to the Charismatic, was a friend. He had come to our church a few times. He was a Pentecostal but did not push the tongues issue, unlike his Charismatic friend, who believed that tongues was necessary for salvation.
If tongues was so necessary to salvation I asked him to show me from the Bible this doctrine, and handed him mine.

There were a number of verses that he wanted to show me: one from 1Cor.14; another from Mark 16, and another from the book of Jude. I knew the exact references of the verses that he was looking for. He couldn't find them. In some cases he couldn't even find the book! He had tongues alright; be he certainly didn't have salvation! He had an experience; but not Christ. "Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so." Not, 'for tongues or my experience tells me so.'

Because he couldn't find the verses he was looking for he became frustrated. His frustration led to his conclusion that it must be me that was demon-possessed. I guess that was a convenient excuse for his own anger and frustration. He took it out on me in a violent demonstration of so-called casting out a demon by the power of the blood of Jesus. It was quite a dramatic show. He was quite the actor. The person beside me said: "I'm getting out of here before he cast a demon out of me too." I am sure that most of the people around considered the person mentally unstable. I will give the person the benefit of the doubt and say he wasn't, but just very, very deluded in his belief.
DHK

 

[susanpet]

If the Charismatic was so "in tune" with God and The Holy Spirit, why couldn't he cast out the demon? Just a thought.

 

[DHK]

Matthew 12:25-26 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

 

[susanpet]

Exactly.