Bible Study Just What ARE Pentecostal "Tongues"?

[Dave...]

Both books are speaking of the same jibberish!

The Biblical principle of confirming truth – "in the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established"

Here are three witnesses concerning the nature of the Pentecostal gift. known earthly languages or dialects.

The First Recorded Instance – Acts 2:1-11

1. "every man heard them speak IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE"
– v. 6

2. "how hear we every man in OUR OWN TONGUE wherein we were born" – v. 8

3. "we hear them speak in OUR TONGUES the wonderful works of God" – v. 11

Counterfeit tongues.

The speaker "does not speak to men" (1 Cor. 14:2)

"No one understands him" (1 Cor. 14:2)

Biblical tongues.

The speaker speaks of "the wonderful works of God" (Acts 2:11) To people of other nationalities (Acts 2:6-11)

"Everyone heard them speak in his own language" (Acts 2:6-11)

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. (1 Cor.14:21)

Apart from the primary purpose of tongues, a sign to warn of God's coming judgment towards unbelieving Israel (unbelievers), the secondary uses for tongues serve no benefit above and beyond that which we can all accomplish without tongues. When the sign aspect of tongues is absent, the secondary uses become expendable. All the secondary benefits of tongues were so God would stay true to His Word not be the "author of confusion", hence the gift of interpretation. While the sign was being given to the Jews there would be believers standing around not knowing what was being said. God gave the gift of interpretation so there would be no confusion, everyone was edified. The primary purpose was the sign, since that judgment fell, tongues were no longer needed and ceased as the Bible said it would. Prophecy was the gift given to believers, tongues, a sign of the judgment to come, when given, needed to also edify any believers who heard and did not understand. That's why God gave the Church the gift of interpretation. If the goal is to edify the body, then prophecy is the gift given by God for this purpose, not tongues. If the goal (from God) is to show His judgment is coming to unbelieving Israel, then that sign must be interpreted to edify believers, though this was not it's primary purpose.

14:22
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.

 

[lecoop]

For ease of writing, I will put my answers in red ink.

When Paul said "no man understands," that is exactly

This is not a command, but a statement of fact.

I agree - a fact that most here don't seem to understand.

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

First, this is not speaking of the Holy Spirit, but our spirit.

I agree. But tongues do not originate in the human spirit. The Holy Spirit gives the "utterance" and the human makes a choice to speak them out. Then this utterance passes from the human spirit to the mouth, and the mind is bypassed. It is then a mystery to the speaker, and a mystery to the hearers. This is what Paul says is speaking "in the spirit."

Second, Why does Paul qualify it with "for no one understands him" when the true gift speaks to this people? "I will speak to this people;"

You are confusing two aspects or purposes of tongues. The primary purpose is as a prayer language. Used this way, the speaker is speaking to God. When used as the second purpose, to bring a message to a group, then someone would give a "message" in tongues, and someone would interpret. In this second purpose, the tongues are pointed toward people.

Third, why in verse nine is he speaking into the air? Not to God?

Paul is speaking from a listener's point of view. Since no one can understand what is being spoken, the speaker is then "speaking into the air." However, this in no way implys that God does not hear and answer.


1 Pursue love (not self seeking), and desire spiritual gifts (true gifts used properly are good), but especially that you may prophesy (prophecy is for believers).

Paul is using the age old proverb, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." He is showing that it is better for the whole group (local body of believers) to be edified than for one to be edified. In Paul's argument, it is understood that prophecy is given in the learned language, so that all (or most) present will understand. However, Paul says that tongues with interpretation are the equivelent of prophecy. ("except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.")

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (This is the wrong thing to do)

No, Paul is not saying that it is wrong; he is just discribing how tongues work. A discription is neither right nor wrong.

Note:vs. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. (This is the wrong thing to do)

Again, Paul is not saying that it is wrong; he is just discribing how tongues work. A discription is neither right nor wrong. Paul is saying that when one prays in tongues, it is coming from the spirit man - it is the spirit of the person praying, as the HS gives the utterance. It is the right thing to do, for Paul said that he did it more than them all!

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.(this is the right thing to do)

What exactly is Paul saying here? He is saying that he will spend some time praying in the spirit (defined in his previous verses as praying in tongues) and then he will spend some time praying in his learned language. Why will he spend time doing both? Because both types of prayer are beneficial. Both praying in the spirit (tongues) and praying in English are the right thing to do. Oh! But those that have not received the baptism with the HS, with the initial evidence of tongues, will not be able to follow Paul here.

3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. (this is the right thing to do)

I agree, if the Holy Spirit leads. What exactly is a "prophecy?" It is speaking supernaturally from the spirit, the utterance that the Holy Spirit is giving. Someone can fake a prophecy, but most everyone will know that it was faked, and not from the Holy Spirit. Beginners, just learning to speak out what the HS is giving, will not be as fluent as those with much experience. It takes both practice and faith to speak out what the HS is saying in the human spirit.

4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself (wrong thing to do), but he who prophesies edifies the church (right thing to do).

Once again, you are putting your own spin on what Paul said. Edifying one's self is necessary and good. In other words, edifying could be like charging a battery. Paul is saying that it is good to edify the spirit of a man. After all, Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than them all. Where then, did he do all this tongue talking? Not in the church! No, Paul used tongues to pray. It is the right thing to do.

5 I wish you all spoke with tongues ( The true gift is Good, it still had purpose before the judgment fell), but even more that you prophesied (prophecy is specifically for the edification of believers); for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. ( even true tongues should be interpreted so believers are edified, the purpose is still a for a sign)

Once more, you mix up the several purposes for tongues. Remember, the KJV said "divers tongues?" When used in prayer, there is no need for any interpretation. The prayer is speaking to God. God understands! It is when the HS wants to use a tongues with interpretation to speak to a local body that there is need for interpretation.

Note: 22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

This sign is relevant only to tongues used in a group, as a prophecy given in tongues, and does not relate to tongues used in prayer. I have a good friend that visited a Pentecostal church. During the offering, when the usher passed the plate to him, and they both had their hands on it, the usher spoke out a message in tongues. It was then interpreted, and it was a message straight to my friend! God had "read his mail," so to speak. This event changed his life.

9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. (not speaking to God as in verse two?)

Notice that Paul is writing about speaking to others. This is talking about a group meeting, and someone that is leading. This has nothing to do with praying in tongues by yourself, in which case, you would be speaking to God. Therefore, Paul is saying that if there is no interpeter, or you cannot interpret your own tongues, then don't speak in tongues! Very logical. Why speak in tongues to a group of people, when they cannot understand? That would be stupid. Paul was just too polite to use such a word.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. (Tongue[[]]=Languages)

Again, your own spin. Paul is just saying that all languages have significance to the people that speak and hear it. Tongues are from the HS, so you could say that they are God's language. They too have significance, when used properly. No man understands, but God does. This is the whole purpose of Paul's letter: the proper use of tongues.

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. (seek edifying the Church, this is what love does, without lov, you are a clanging symbol.)

Again, Paul is using the argument of what is better for the many, versus better for the one. He says it is better to seek a gift that will benefit the many, versus the one. Again, though, remember that Paul said he spoke in tongues more than them all. Therefore, Paul is speaking here more about tongues used in a gathering, used as prophecy to speak to the body.

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Tongues a Sign to Unbelievers

In a gathering or meeting, it is better for the many, rather than for the one.


20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21In the law it is written:


"With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,"


says the Lord.
22Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Why is it that all Charismatic teaching always ends up pointing towards one obscure verse, but disregards all the clear scripture?

Why is it that those that don't speak in tongues, and don't understand these scriptures, try to teach them?

Coop

 

[mutzrein]

In the main, a good response Coop

 

[SputnikBoy]

So . . .just what ARE Pentecostal 'tongues'?

Are they gibberish (fake)? How could we ever know since even staunch 'tongue-speakers' say that there is the genuine and the fake.

Are they real? Well, again, how can we know since there is no discernable difference between the fake and the 'genuine'.

Are 'tongues' of the Holy Spirit? Well, are the lives of all 'tongue-speakers' indicative of someone who has an infilling of the Holy Spirit? Hmmm . . . While not intending to be judgmental, didn't Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker 'speak in tongues'? How about Benny Hinn and many other TV evangelists?

Are 'tongues' of Satan? Some say yes. I hesitate to make that judgment.

Are 'tongues' beneficial (edifying) to the church? Not at all!

Are 'tongues' intended to edify self? Not at all! Those who say otherwise are misreading a single text from Paul.

Are 'tongues' taught to church members by other church members who claim to 'speak in tongues'? At times ...absolutely!

Would it be necessary for a supernatural phenomena from the Holy Spirit to receive assistance from mere mortals? One wouldn't think so.

Do many within paganistic cultures 'speak in tongues'? Yep!

Is this of the Holy Spirit? You tell me.

If recorded, would the pagan 'tongues' differ any from 'Pentecostal tongues'? I don't know. Perhaps it might be interesting to find out.

Can 'tongues' be induced through an ecstatic and euphoric emotional state? Yep!

With use and practice, can 'tongues' roll off the tongue as if naturally? Yep!

Is there any 'criteria' for 'tongue-speaking' as per the Bible?

Why ...yes, there is! And, based on 'this criteria' Pentecostal 'tongues' come across as being nothing more than a self-serving sham. Sorry.

 

[Dave...]

For ease of writing, I will put my answers in red ink.

When Paul said "no man understands," that is exactly

This is not a command, but a statement of fact.

I agree - a fact that most here don't seem to understand.

Then why do you assume that this is not a rebuke when it clearly goes against the rest scripture?

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

First, this is not speaking of the Holy Spirit, but our spirit.

I agree. But tongues do not originate in the human spirit. The Holy Spirit gives the "utterance" and the human makes a choice to speak them out. Then this utterance passes from the human spirit to the mouth, and the mind is bypassed. It is then a mystery to the speaker, and a mystery to the hearers. This is what Paul says is speaking "in the spirit."

The false tongue are spoken from the human spirit. True tongues would have been spoken from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself. Self edification is not why they were gifted as Paul makes very clear, that would be absent of love which is not self seeking. The Holy Spirit cannot be a clanging symbol, or the author of confusion. The mind should NEVER be bypassed, "(Love your Lord God with...) all your mind...". You've failed across the board.

Second, Why does Paul qualify it with "for no one understands him" when the true gift speaks to this people? "I will speak to this people;"

You are confusing two aspects or purposes of tongues. The primary purpose is as a prayer language. Used this way, the speaker is speaking to God. When used as the second purpose, to bring a message to a group, then someone would give a "message" in tongues, and someone would interpret. In this second purpose, the tongues are pointed toward people.

The purpose of tongues was to be a sign of judgment on unbelieving Israel. The gift of interpretation was given so their would be no confusion amongst believers when the sign was being given to unbelieving Israel. Without the sign of judgment, prophecy is superior to speak to the body. We are not gifted to minister to God, but to the Body, this is made abundantly clear in chapter 12-14.

1 Pursue love (not self seeking), and desire spiritual gifts (true gifts used properly are good), but especially that you may prophesy (prophecy is for believers).

Paul is using the age old proverb, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." He is showing that it is better for the whole group (local body of believers) to be edified than for one to be edified. In Paul's argument, it is understood that prophecy is given in the learned language, so that all (or most) present will understand. However, Paul says that tongues with interpretation are the equivelent of prophecy. ("except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.")

The sign is still the reason for the existance of tongues, not the edification the Body. Prophecy was given to the Body for edification

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (This is the wrong thing to do)

Note:vs. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. (This is the wrong thing to do)

Again, Paul is not saying that it is wrong; he is just discribing how tongues work. A discription is neither right nor wrong. Paul is saying that when one prays in tongues, it is coming from the spirit man - it is the spirit of the person praying, as the HS gives the utterance. It is the right thing to do, for Paul said that he did it more than them all!

No, Paul is not saying that it is wrong; he is just discribing how tongues work. A discription is neither right nor wrong.

This contradicts Pauls clear teachings that we should seek to edify the Body. Also, if we understand it as a statement of fact, then we can go to the rest of the context to determine if it is the right thing, or the wrong thing to do. What does the context say?

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Very simple, let the bible define itself.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.(this is the right thing to do)


What exactly is Paul saying here? He is saying that he will spend some time praying in the spirit (defined in his previous verses as praying in tongues) and then he will spend some time praying in his learned language. Why will he spend time doing both? Because both types of prayer are beneficial. Both praying in the spirit (tongues) and praying in English are the right thing to do. Oh! But those that have not received the baptism with the HS, with the initial evidence of tongues, will not be able to follow Paul here.

Notice Paul uses an "and", not a "but". He's not speaking of two different kinds of tongues. That's very, very sloppy. BTW, "Praying in the Spirit" has nothing to do with tongues, this is a Pentecostal/Charismatic myth. Again, let the Bible define it.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Conclusion:
"I will read the Bible, and I will also read it with understanding" is not speaking of two different approaches to the Bible, but the same one.


3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. (this is the right thing to do)

I agree, if the Holy Spirit leads. What exactly is a "prophecy?" It is speaking supernaturally from the spirit, the utterance that the Holy Spirit is giving. Someone can fake a prophecy, but most everyone will know that it was faked, and not from the Holy Spirit. Beginners, just learning to speak out what the HS is giving, will not be as fluent as those with much experience. It takes both practice and faith to speak out what the HS is saying in the human spirit.

Although prophecy was used by God to reveal His written Word, the word "prophecy" never meant anything more than speaking forth, to proclaim. In 1 Cor. 14:3 Paul tells us...

what the gift of prophecy is for....

14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

And elsewhere we see that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy ...

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And the Bible is the testimony of Jesus.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

As Alistair Begg would say, "there's no magic here"

4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself (wrong thing to do), but he who prophesies edifies the church (right thing to do).

Once again, you are putting your own spin on what Paul said. Edifying one's self is necessary and good. In other words, edifying could be like charging a battery. Paul is saying that it is good to edify the spirit of a man. After all, Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than them all. Where then, did he do all this tongue talking? Not in the church! No, Paul used tongues to pray. It is the right thing to do.

God did not gift us to edify ourselves, but the Body. Read chapter (12-13). Tongues cannot edify believers, the gift of interpretation was given to give edification when the true tongues/languages were spoken as a sign to unbelieving Israel.

"Not in church" exactly, because tongues are for unbelievers, prophecy is for believers. Paul prayed with all his mind as love would do. Self edification "deny self" is exactly what not to do, especially with gifts that God has given to minister to the Body with, which does not include tongue.

5 I wish you all spoke with tongues ( The true gift is Good, it still had purpose before the judgment fell), but even more that you prophesied (prophecy is specifically for the edification of believers); for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. ( even true tongues should be interpreted so believers are edified, the purpose is still a for a sign)

Once more, you mix up the several purposes for tongues. Remember, the KJV said "divers tongues?" When used in prayer, there is no need for any interpretation. The prayer is speaking to God. God understands! It is when the HS wants to use a tongues with interpretation to speak to a local body that there is need for interpretation.

Tongues = languages. No magic here, either. That's all it means. There is no private prayer language, never was. Again, being selfish (done without love, chapter 13), while not using your mind is not what Paul had in mind. This is very clear in scripture.

Note: 22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

This sign is relevant only to tongues used in a group, as a prophecy given in tongues, and does not relate to tongues used in prayer. I have a good friend that visited a Pentecostal church. During the offering, when the usher passed the plate to him, and they both had their hands on it, the usher spoke out a message in tongues. It was then interpreted, and it was a message straight to my friend! God had "read his mail," so to speak. This event changed his life.

It does not say "tongues used in a group are for a sign, it simply says that tongues are for a sign, and scripture backs this up everywhere.

9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. (not speaking to God as in verse two?)


Notice that Paul is writing about speaking to others. This is talking about a group meeting, and someone that is leading. This has nothing to do with praying in tongues by yourself, in which case, you would be speaking to God. Therefore, Paul is saying that if there is no interpeter, or you cannot interpret your own tongues, then don't speak in tongues! Very logical. Why speak in tongues to a group of people, when they cannot understand? That would be stupid. Paul was just too polite to use such a word.

It amazes me the lengths that you guys will go to actually convince yourselves of what your flesh wants, and call it Biblical.

10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. (Tongue[[]]=Languages)

Again, your own spin. Paul is just saying that all languages have significance to the people that speak and hear it. Tongues are from the HS, so you could say that they are God's language. They too have significance, when used properly. No man understands, but God does. This is the whole purpose of Paul's letter: the proper use of tongues.

Anything that is from God is from the Holy Spirit. Everything that is not from God is from the flesh.

What you have done is taken a statement of fact (vs.2), and assumed that it was something good in the face of clear scripture that shows that it is not the will of God, therefore cannot be from Him, and then you build this incorrect understanding based on a faulty assumption.

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel. (seek edifying the Church, this is what love does, without love, you are a clanging symbol.)

Again, Paul is using the argument of what is better for the many, versus better for the one. He says it is better to seek a gift that will benefit the many, versus the one. Again, though, remember that Paul said he spoke in tongues more than them all. Therefore, Paul is speaking here more about tongues used in a gathering, used as prophecy to speak to the body.

What you have done is taken a statement of fact (vs.2), and assumed that it was something good in the face of clear scripture that shows that it is not the will of God, therefore cannot be from Him, and then you build this incorrect understanding based on a faulty assumption. This flies in the face of the very clear scripture.

18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all; 19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.
Tongues a Sign to Unbelievers

In a gathering or meeting, it is better for the many, rather than for the one.

What you have done is taken a statement of fact (vs.2), and assumed that it was something good in the face of clear scripture that shows that it is not the will of God, therefore cannot be from Him, and then you build this incorrect understanding based on a faulty assumption. This flies in the face of the very clear scripture.

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21In the law it is written:


"With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,"


says the Lord.
22Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

Why is it that all Charismatic teaching always ends up pointing towards one obscure verse, but disregards all the clear scripture?

Why is it that those that don't speak in tongues, and don't understand these scriptures, try to teach them?

What you have done is taken a statement of fact (vs.2), and assumed that it was something good in the face of clear scripture that shows that it is not the will of God, therefore cannot be from Him, and then you build this incorrect understanding based on a faulty assumption. This flies in the face of the very clear scripture.

 

[Dave...]

Coop your whole case is built upon your faulty assumptions of vs. 2 and 4. Which do not say what you claim that they do.

 

[lecoop]

For ease of writing, I will put my answers in red ink.

[quote="Dave...":7957b]

When Paul said "no man understands," that is exactly

This is not a command, but a statement of fact.

I agree - a fact that most here don't seem to understand.

Then why do you assume that this is not a rebuke when it clearly goes against the rest scripture?

3-13-06 I assume nothing. I know it is not a rebuke. It is correction. I think you need to study this more, and with your preconceived glassed off.

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries.

First, this is not speaking of the Holy Spirit, but our spirit.

I agree. But tongues do not originate in the human spirit. The Holy Spirit gives the "utterance" and the human makes a choice to speak them out. Then this utterance passes from the human spirit to the mouth, and the mind is bypassed. It is then a mystery to the speaker, and a mystery to the hearers. This is what Paul says is speaking "in the spirit."

The false tongue are spoken from the human spirit. True tongues would have been spoken from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would not contradict Himself. Self edification is not why they were gifted as Paul makes very clear, that would be absent of love which is not self seeking. The Holy Spirit cannot be a clanging symbol, or the author of confusion. The mind should NEVER be bypassed, "(Love your Lord God with...) all your mind...". You've failed across the board.

3-13-06 This is only your spin. Paul clearly teaches that tongues is coming from the spirit of the human. Luke adds that the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. It is your preconceived idea that this is wrong. It is what happened in Acts 2, and in Acts 8 and in Acts 10 and in Acts 19. And it is what is happening today around the world. The Holy Spirit does not contridict himself. It is a lack of understanding what Paul wrote that brings confusion. Paul clearly taught that speaking in tongues edifies, or "builds up" the spirit of the prayer. This is a good thing to do. Why do you see this as bad? Even Jude agrees:

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

The mind is always bypassed when we speak from our spirit. That is just the way that God created us. If you say this is wrong, then you are disagreeing with both Luke and Paul. I wouldn't do that.

Second, Why does Paul qualify it with "for no one understands him" when the true gift speaks to this people? "I will speak to this people;"


You are confusing two aspects or purposes of tongues. The primary purpose is as a prayer language. Used this way, the speaker is speaking to God. When used as the second purpose, to bring a message to a group, then someone would give a "message" in tongues, and someone would interpret. In this second purpose, the tongues are pointed toward people.

The purpose of tongues was to be a sign of judgment on unbelieving Israel. The gift of interpretation was given so their would be no confusion amongst believers when the sign was being given to unbelieving Israel. Without the sign of judgment, prophecy is superior to speak to the body. We are not gifted to minister to God, but to the Body, this is made abundantly clear in chapter 12-14.

3-13-06 Again, this is just your spin. This is one purpose. Paul wrote this, but also wrote that he would spend time praying in tongues, and then spend time praying in his learned language: two separate manifestations of tongues for two separate purposes. When Paul is praying in tongues, are there any unbelievers present, and is his prayer a sign for them? Of course not! Prophecy and tongues with interpretation are equal. We do minister to God when we praise and worship Him.

Acts 13:2
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

1 Pursue love (not self seeking), and desire spiritual gifts (true gifts used properly are good), but especially that you may prophesy (prophecy is for believers).

Paul is using the age old proverb, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." He is showing that it is better for the whole group (local body of believers) to be edified than for one to be edified. In Paul's argument, it is understood that prophecy is given in the learned language, so that all (or most) present will understand. However, Paul says that tongues with interpretation are the equivelent of prophecy. ("except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.")

The sign is still the reason for the existance of tongues, not the edification the Body. Prophecy was given to the Body for edification

3-13-06 Tongues as a sign is one reason for tongues. If you understood what Paul wrote, you would see that Paul's main use of tongues was in his prayer life. When Paul wrote about the sign, he was speaking about only one manifestation of tongues.

2 For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. (This is the wrong thing to do)

Note:vs. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. (This is the wrong thing to do)

Again, Paul is not saying that it is wrong; he is just discribing how tongues work. A discription is neither right nor wrong. Paul is saying that when one prays in tongues, it is coming from the spirit man - it is the spirit of the person praying, as the HS gives the utterance. It is the right thing to do, for Paul said that he did it more than them all!

No, Paul is not saying that it is wrong; he is just discribing how tongues work. A discription is neither right nor wrong.

This contradicts Pauls clear teachings that we should seek to edify the Body. Also, if we understand it as a statement of fact, then we can go to the rest of the context to determine if it is the right thing, or the wrong thing to do. What does the context say?

12 Even so you, since you are zealous for spiritual gifts, let it be for the edification of the church that you seek to excel.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Very simple, let the bible define itself.

3-13-06 Since you brought it up, look closely at verse 15. Paul's conclusion is far from yours! Paul is saying that the right thing to do is to spend time praying in the spirit, in tongues, and then spend time praying in the learned language. Then do both singing! Paul is not speaking of "body ministry" here. He is speaking of his own prayer life. You have failed to understand that Paul switches back and forth from one manifestation and purpose of tongues to the other. Even though edifying "the many" is more inportant than edifying "the few or the one," still, we can see in verse 15 that Paul uses tongues in his prayer life, so he is not going to let the "one" go. He will build himself up, when he is alone, and then build the body up when he is preaching.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.(this is the right thing to do)


What exactly is Paul saying here? He is saying that he will spend some time praying in the spirit (defined in his previous verses as praying in tongues) and then he will spend some time praying in his learned language. Why will he spend time doing both? Because both types of prayer are beneficial. Both praying in the spirit (tongues) and praying in English are the right thing to do. Oh! But those that have not received the baptism with the HS, with the initial evidence of tongues, will not be able to follow Paul here.

Notice Paul uses an "and", not a "but". He's not speaking of two different kinds of tongues. That's very, very sloppy. BTW, "Praying in the Spirit" has nothing to do with tongues, this is a Pentecostal/Charismatic myth. Again, let the Bible define it.

15 What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.

Conclusion:
"I will read the Bible, and I will also read it with understanding" is not speaking of two different approaches to the Bible, but the same one.


3-13-06 You need to go back and study this again without your preconceived glasses on. This is not at all what Paul is saying. Let's break this verse out and study it.

15 What is it then?

Since tongues come from my spirit and I don't even know what I'm saying, what shall I do? What is the God thing to do?

15 I will pray with the spirit,

Paul just got through saying in verse 14 that tongues is "my spirit prayeth", so there can be no other meaning here except that Paul will spend time praying in tongues. To make this verse say anything else than praying in tongues, would be to take this verse out of context. Verse 16 clinches this meaning. He is speaking of a prayer in the spirit that is not understood, because it is in tongues.

15 and I will pray with the understanding also:

Paul has just said many times that with tongues there is no understanding, but with the learned language there is understanding, so now he is saying that he will spend some time praying in his own language. So he will pray in tongues a while, then pray in Hebrew or Greek (that he understands) for a while. There can be no other intent here by Paul. He has just written 15 verses where he makes a comparison of speaking in tongues versus speaking in the common language that is understood.

To make this verse say anything else than a paradigm* of praying in tongues, and then in the local language would, again, be to take this verse totally out of context.

Paradigm* "Para" is "one along side another," as in paratrooper or parallel, and "digm" is a comparison, so paradigm is to bring two thoughts or ideas right up along side of each other for easy comparison. Paul brings up praying in tongues and praying in his native language to compare the two.


3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. (this is the right thing to do)

I agree, if the Holy Spirit leads. What exactly is a "prophecy?" It is speaking supernaturally from the spirit, the utterance that the Holy Spirit is giving. Someone can fake a prophecy, but most everyone will know that it was faked, and not from the Holy Spirit. Beginners, just learning to speak out what the HS is giving, will not be as fluent as those with much experience. It takes both practice and faith to speak out what the HS is saying in the human spirit.

Although prophecy was used by God to reveal His written Word, the word "prophecy" never meant anything more than speaking forth, to proclaim. In 1 Cor. 14:3 Paul tells us...

what the gift of prophecy is for....

14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

And elsewhere we see that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy ...

Rev. 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And the Bible is the testimony of Jesus.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

As Alistair Begg would say, "there's no magic here"

3-13-06 If you want to take the supernatural out of the gift of prophecy (chapter 12) then try taking it out of the gift of miracles or the gift of healings. Just try healing someone under your own power. No, all nine of these gifts are supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and prophecy is included. All nine gifts work outside the realm if the natural man. Therefore, prophecy is supernatural. I know, men that have never prophecied want to make this just ordinary "speaking forth," so they can then say that they prophecy, but they are in error. Prophecy is speaking from the spirit, just as tongues, but in prophecy it is spoken in the learned language.

Acts 13
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

Here we see prophecy in action. Notice that the HG said. Did he say this out of thin air? No, he spoke by one of the prophets there. Notice that Luke spoke of the prophets being there first. One of the prophets spoke out what the HS said. Where did the HS say it? In the spirit of the prophet. So this prophecy was not "preaching" but was supernatural.

Acts 21
10 And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judaea a certain prophet, named Agabus.
11 And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.

Again we see prophecy in action. How would Agabus know what the HS was saying? Because the HS spoke into his spirit, and he spoke it out so that all could hear and understand. This is what Paul meant by "prophecy:" speaking forth in the learned language, what the HS is saying in the human spirit. It is supernatural, just as all the nine gifts of the spirit are.

4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself (wrong thing to do), but he who prophesies edifies the church (right thing to do).

Once again, you are putting your own spin on what Paul said. Edifying one's self is necessary and good. In other words, edifying could be like charging a battery. Paul is saying that it is good to edify the spirit of a man. After all, Paul said that he spoke in tongues more than them all. Where then, did he do all this tongue talking? Not in the church! No, Paul used tongues to pray. It is the right thing to do.

God did not gift us to edify ourselves, but the Body. Read chapter (12-13). Tongues cannot edify believers, the gift of interpretation was given to give edification when the true tongues/languages were spoken as a sign to unbelieving Israel.

3-13-06 You seem to have a problem understanding Paul, as you keep disagreeing with him. Read this closely several times, without your preconceived glasses:

4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself..

You misunderstand what Paul is saying here. This is not a bad thing. You only think it is bad, because you misunderstand. This is not a pride thing. It is like charging up a battery. The more time one spends praying in tongues, the more powerful the spirit man becomes. These prayers in tongues are meant to be answered just as any other prayer. Spending an hour praying in English is good. Praying an hour in tongues is also good. That is why Paul said he would do both. (not at the same time, but one after the other.)

"Not in church" exactly, because tongues are for unbelievers, prophecy is for believers. Paul prayed with all his mind as love would do. Self edification "deny self" is exactly what not to do, especially with gifts that God has given to minister to the Body with, which does not include tongue.

5 I wish you all spoke with tongues ( The true gift is Good, it still had purpose before the judgment fell), but even more that you prophesied (prophecy is specifically for the edification of believers); for he who prophesies is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification. ( even true tongues should be interpreted so believers are edified, the purpose is still a for a sign)

Once more, you mix up the several purposes for tongues. Remember, the KJV said "divers tongues?" When used in prayer, there is no need for any interpretation. The prayer is speaking to God. God understands! It is when the HS wants to use a tongues with interpretation to speak to a local body that there is need for interpretation.

Tongues = languages. No magic here, either. That's all it means. There is no private prayer language, never was. Again, being selfish (done without love, chapter 13), while not using your mind is not what Paul had in mind. This is very clear in scripture.

3-13-06 It is amazing how you spin what Paul and Luke wrote. What did Luke say? "As the Spirit gave the utterance." They spoke in tongues as the HS created the language. Yes, It can be called a language, but not an earthly language being used somewhere in the world. That is why Paul said, "no man understands." It seems you still can't understand this simple phrase. This means that if you traveled the world around, still, no man understands. That is what "no man" means. Not even the speaker understands. Is this bad? No, for Paul said he would both pray and sing in tongues. This was Pauls' private prayer language, which your preconceived glasses are hiding from you. Why do you think Paul wrote, "and I will pray with the understanding also," if the prayer in the spirit was with understanding? You read this out of context, and with your own spin.

14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.

Notice, Paul is allowing his spirit man to pray. He says, "my spirit prays" and please notice that he does not have a clue what he is saying. So what will Paul do? He will pray two ways! He will spend time praying in the spirit, and spend time praying in Greek! Darby got it right.

Darby's English Translation
14:15 What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing also with the understanding.

Douay Rheims
14:15 What is it then ? I will pray with the spirit, I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing with the spirit, I will sing also with the understanding.

Clearly, the prayer in the spirit has no understanding, while the prayer in Greek (for Paul) would be praying with the understanding.

Young's Literal Translation
14:15 What then is it? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray also with the understanding; I will sing psalms with the spirit, and I will sing psalms also with the understanding;

Clearly Paul is speaking of two kinds of praying, one with no understanding, and one with understanding. To make sure we understand this, Paul adds this:

Darby's English Translation
14:16 Since otherwise, if thou blessest with the spirit, how shall he who fills the place of the simple Christian say Amen, at thy giving of thanks, since he does not know what thou sayest?

Paul is proving that the prayer with no understanding is a prayer in tongues. Here someone is praying in tongues, with the spirit, and it is not understood.



Note: 22 Therefore tongues are for a sign, not to those who believe but to unbelievers; but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

This sign is relevant only to tongues used in a group, as a prophecy given in tongues, and does not relate to tongues used in prayer. I have a good friend that visited a Pentecostal church. During the offering, when the usher passed the plate to him, and they both had their hands on it, the usher spoke out a message in tongues. It was then interpreted, and it was a message straight to my friend! God had "read his mail," so to speak. This event changed his life.

It does not say "tongues used in a group are for a sign, it simply says that tongues are for a sign, and scripture backs this up everywhere.

3-13-06 Then when Paul spends time praying in the spirit, in tongues, who is the sign for? He needs no sign!

9 So likewise you, unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air. (not speaking to God as in verse two?)


Notice that Paul is writing about speaking to others. This is talking about a group meeting, and someone that is leading. This has nothing to do with praying in tongues by yourself, in which case, you would be speaking to God. Therefore, Paul is saying that if there is no interpeter, or you cannot interpret your own tongues, then don't speak in tongues! Very logical. Why speak in tongues to a group of people, when they cannot understand? That would be stupid. Paul was just too polite to use such a word.

It amazes me the lengths that you guys will go to actually convince yourselves of what your flesh wants, and call it Biblical.

3-13-06 Sorry, I am using good biblical exegesis. This is no lenth taken at all, but just understanding what Paul wrote.


10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. (Tongue[[]]=Languages)

Again, your own spin. Paul is just saying that all languages have significance to the people that speak and hear it. Tongues are from the HS, so you could say that they are God's language. They too have significance, when used properly. No man understands, but God does. This is the whole purpose of Paul's letter: the proper use of tongues.

Anything that is from God is from the Holy Spirit. Everything that is not from God is from the flesh.

3-13-06 I agree.

What you have done is taken a statement of fact (vs.2), and assumed that it was something good in the face of clear scripture that shows that it is not the will of God, therefore cannot be from Him, and then you build this incorrect understanding based on a faulty assumption.

3-13-06 In truth, you put a spin on what Paul says, because you will not just believe it and receive it. Just one verse will blow your theories out of the water, so to speak. Paul said "I speak in tongues more than ye all." Yet he also said, "I had rather speak 5 words with my understanding..." Putting these two thoughts together, then, where does Paul do all this speaking in tongues? The answer is so easy, if you just don't spin it. He prays in tongues and he sings in tongues! And he does this when he is alone.


Duplicate text deleted.

[/quote:7957b]

 

[SputnikBoy]

What is going on here is typical charismatic rhetoric. Attempts are being made - as always - to make the scriptures fit the false practice of present-day 'tongues'. There is no way that a clear understanding of I Corinthians can do this. And so, the scriptures are contorted in such a way as to make the Pentecostal practice seem legit. It's quite appalling really and those of you who are doing this really do need to snap out of it and do some serious Bible study.

Don't be fooled. If any of you 'speak in tongues' - whether praying or jabbering away in church - you are being deceived. The 'practice' is supposed to emulate 'the scriptures' and not the other way around!

 

[lecoop]

What is going on here is typical charismatic rhetoric. Attempts are being made - as always - to make the scriptures fit the false practice of present-day 'tongues'. There is no way that a clear understanding of I Corinthians can do this. And so, the scriptures are contorted in such a way as to make the Pentecostal practice seem legit. It's quite appalling really and those of you who are doing this really do need to snap out of it and do some serious Bible study.

Don't be fooled. If any of you 'speak in tongues' - whether praying or jabbering away in church - you are being deceived. The 'practice' is supposed to emulate 'the scriptures' and not the other way around!

For the readers:
If someone needed open heart surgery, would they want their family doctor to try it for the first time, or would they pick someone that has done this surgery many times successfully? Who would you choose?

If you wanted to research, say, the Mormon church, would you go to Nepal and speak to a guru sitting on a mountain top, or would you go to Salt Lake City, and talk with people that are a part of that church? Or perhaps go to the LDS institute and study LDS history? Do you see the point? Why do people that have never received what the disciples in the book of Acts received, and have never spoken in tongues, think they have the answers?

The answer is, they don't! We really need only to look at one scripture and see that the apostle Paul spent many hours praying in tongues. He said that he spoke in tongues more than them all! Would you think then, that he knew something about it? What did he say? That when someone speaks in tongues, "no man understands." Just this one phrase then, proves to anyone that can read without preconceived glasses, that Paul was not talking about any human language found somewhere on the earth. He was writing about "gibberish," for lack of any other word. He called it "tongues."

Not only did Paul say that the listeners could not understand, but the speaker himself, or herself could not understand either! Yet Paul said that he did this more than them all! Did Paul then, believe that there was benefit in spending all this time praying in tongues? Certainly he did! Yet we know that when he was in front of a local group of believers, he would not speak in tongues that neither he nor they could understand. Therefore, most of his tongue speaking (that he did more than them all) must have been done when he was alone, praying.

This is not "charismatic rhetoric;" it is the word of God. Anyone that will read this portion of scripture without preconceived glasses on, can receive faith to receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit themselves, and receive tongues with this baptism, just as they did in the book of Acts. Obviously, if the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write that he prayed in tongues more than them all, it would be beneficial for us also. Therefore, as Paul said, forbid not to speak in tongues! It is one way that we recharge ourselves (edify) with God's power.

Who is the one truly deceived? It is the one that cannot believe what God has written for us. Jesus did not suggest that the disciples tarry in Jerusalem - no, He commanded it! This command then, is for us and the church until the rapture and the fulness of the Gentiles has come in. Why did Jesus command this? Because this baptism with the HS is the anointing that breaks the yolk! It is the anointing by which we minister the gospel. Jesus point was: don't leave home without it! The anointing is that important! And the tongues that come with it, are just as important, else Acts 2, 8, 10, and 19 would not be in our bible.
Coop

 

[Dave...]

Paul spent many hours praying in tongues.

This is not "charismatic rhetoric;" it is the word of God.

This simply is not true. Please show me this scripture that says that Paul prayed in a personal prayer language.

The perfect prayer is one from the heart with our understanding, as Paul told us.

Nowhere in scripture is it taught that languages give us a deeper spiritual connection or a superior prayer. It's just not there.

When Jesus gave an example of how we should pray, it was in a clear and understandable prayer. Every example of prayer in scripture is clear and understandable. When Deity prayed to Deity at Gathsemine, it was clear and understandable.

Without the sign, tongues becomes a hinderance. They can do nothing that every saved person cannot already do more efficiantly, with less confusion, less restrictions, more Biblically and more profitable in their normal language.

coop, the Charismatic/Pentecostal churches are building their church on rebukes, and as a result, they are recreating the error of the immature Corinthian church. You have recreated Babylon. Listed below is the sin of the church in Corinth. Does this sound familiar? It does to me because I spent three years watching it happen from inside.

"They were the church that didn't understand true spirituality, who allowed all their pagan religious practices to creep into the church (12:2). They were worldly, divisive, opinionated, cliquish, carnal, fleshly, envious, strife-ridden, argumentative, puffed up, self- glorying, smug, immoral, compromising with sin, defrauding each other, fornicating, depriving in marriage, offending weaker Christians, lusting after evil things, idolatrous, fellowshipping with demons, insubordinate, gluttonous, drunken, selfish toward the poor, and desecrating the Lord's Table."

"I wish you all spoke in tongues"

First, Paul wishes this for the sake of emphasis, secondly, Paul would not presume to improve on the Holy Spirit's wisdom. Third, it would be impossible and contrary to God's sovereign plan for everyone to have the gift of tongues.

12:10 ....................to another ( not all ) different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

30................Do all speak with tongues?.....................( the implied answer is no )

"I wish" I'll give you a perfect example of what Paul means here.

7:7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself ( unmarried ). But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

Paul wishes that everyone could devote all their time and energy towards serving God in singleness but quickly establishes the fact that God's perfect will has other plans. He stated that "he wished all" for the sake of emphasis.

"18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;"

Paul did not condem the true gift of languages, even though he was rebuking the Corinthians for their use of Pagan mystery religion gibberish. He was also establishing the fact that if anyone would know what the true gift was, it would be him. Who "spoke tongues more than them all", Mostly if not all of their tongues were not the true.

The gift of tongues was not for all saints.

Hence, it is not necessary for salvation.

Hence, it is not necessary for spiritual growth, as it is not for all saints.



Paul, what are tongues for?

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21In the law it is written:


"With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,"


says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign

not to those who believe but to unbelievers;

but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.

 

[Free]

Listed below is the sin of the church in Corinth. Does this sound familiar? It does to me because I spent three years watching it happen from inside.

"They were the church that didn't understand true spirituality, who allowed all their pagan religious practices to creep into the church (12:2). They were worldly, divisive, opinionated, cliquish, carnal, fleshly, envious, strife-ridden, argumentative, puffed up, self- glorying, smug, immoral, compromising with sin, defrauding each other, fornicating, depriving in marriage, offending weaker Christians, lusting after evil things, idolatrous, fellowshipping with demons, insubordinate, gluttonous, drunken, selfish toward the poor, and desecrating the Lord's Table."

This happens just as much in non-Charasmatic churches as Charasmatic and to use it to prove that Charasmatic Churches are in the wrong by believing that tongues exist today is fallacious.

Paul did not condem the true gift of languages, even though he was rebuking the Corinthians for their use of Pagan mystery religion gibberish. He was also establishing the fact that if anyone would know what the true gift was, it would be him. Who "spoke tongues more than them all", Mostly if not all of their tongues were not the true.

Incorrect. There is no distinguishing between Paul's gift of tongues and that used by people in the Corinthian Church. The difference is in the "how," not in the "what". If you disagree then prove with Scripture that the gift of tongues in the Corinthian Church was pagan. Again, you are fallaciously "poisoning the well".

Paul, what are tongues for?

Amazing how you can read and quote from 1 Cor. 14 but yet miss the finer points.

 

[mutzrein]

I know what some of you are saying about those who believe they are more spiritual than others when it comes to something like tongues.

The issue for me though is not tongues. It is this damnable doctrine that says that there are two experiences. One, salvation (or being born again) and two, baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the so-called evidence of speaking in tongues). Now I believe in being born again and I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but not as two experiences. And this is where many in Christendom have been led astray. They take a record of an event (as it is recorded in Acts) and they turn it into doctrine, not realizing (although I wonder sometimes) that they have become self-righteous Pharisees. “Oh I thank-you Lord that you have saved me. And I thank you that you have Baptised me in your Holy Spirit†– while inwardly looking down on those who have not received what they see as the evidence of their ‘gift.’ The ‘proof’ that they are a Christian.

How sad it is for these who wallow around in their own self-righteousness believing that they are ‘special’. And when one avows that he has received the Holy Spirit (and let Christ be the judge of that) the self-righteous say – “prove it!†They either want you to speak in tongues or believe something that your spirit will just not allow.

Hey, there is nothing to prove. No-one is accountable to another man as far as his relationship with God is concerned. As the scripture says, “Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he sands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.â€Â

 

[Free]

It is this damnable doctrine that says that there are two experiences. One, salvation (or being born again) and two, baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the so-called evidence of speaking in tongues). Now I believe in being born again and I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but not as two experiences. And this is where many in Christendom have been led astray.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
Act 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

I'm curious mutzrein, how do you reconcile your statement with the obviously contradictory account given in Acts? Or how about the following:

Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

This is the second time this group was "filled with the Spirit". Or how about this:

Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

The Greek uses the present tense meaning that one is to be filled with the Sprit over and over; it isn't just one time thing. It would seem that Scripture disagrees with your position.

They either want you to speak in tongues or believe something that your spirit will just not allow.

Maybe that's the problem, too many people listening to themselves instead of the Holy Spirit.

 

[mutzrein]

It is this damnable doctrine that says that there are two experiences. One, salvation (or being born again) and two, baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the so-called evidence of speaking in tongues). Now I believe in being born again and I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but not as two experiences. And this is where many in Christendom have been led astray.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
Act 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

I'm curious mutzrein, how do you reconcile your statement with the obviously contradictory account given in Acts? Or how about the following:

Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

This is the second time this group was "filled with the Spirit". Or how about this:

Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

The Greek uses the present tense meaning that one is to be filled with the Sprit over and over; it isn't just one time thing. It would seem that Scripture disagrees with your position.

They either want you to speak in tongues or believe something that your spirit will just not allow.

Maybe that's the problem, too many people listening to themselves instead of the Holy Spirit.

Free - I'm mystified at what you see as a contradiction. Are people being baptised in, or filled with, the Holy Spirit more than once by your reckoning? Are they being saved and then being baptised in the Holy Spirit? Is that what you are saying? If so can you please point out where the two experiences are occurring.

Or is it that you are saying that you don't believe in the two experiences? - rather you believe in an ongoing indwelling of the Holy Spirit from the time of Salvation and there is no such thing as the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

After you said that you believed that the scripture seems to disagree with my position I think I need to clarify yours.

Thanks

 

[mutzrein]

It is this damnable doctrine that says that there are two experiences. One, salvation (or being born again) and two, baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the so-called evidence of speaking in tongues). Now I believe in being born again and I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but not as two experiences. And this is where many in Christendom have been led astray.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John,
Act 8:15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,
Act 8:16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Act 8:17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit.

I'm curious mutzrein, how do you reconcile your statement with the obviously contradictory account given in Acts? Or how about the following:

Act 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

This is the second time this group was "filled with the Spirit". Or how about this:

Eph 5:18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,

The Greek uses the present tense meaning that one is to be filled with the Sprit over and over; it isn't just one time thing. It would seem that Scripture disagrees with your position.

They either want you to speak in tongues or believe something that your spirit will just not allow.

Maybe that's the problem, too many people listening to themselves instead of the Holy Spirit.

I know you did not address me but I had to butt in: I hope you dont mind.

When we are filled with the Holy Spirit we will have victorious Christian lives! Just because you claim to speak (which I dont believe you do) in tongues does not prove anything; it is only deceiving yourselves and others if your life is not godly. I have atteded two tongue-speaking churches and most of them did not even know how to help each other or be kind to each other. Speaking tongues is a highly spiritual gift and if God gives you that gift you are supposed to be very godly.

Not at all – no problems with you butting in. If you don’t mind my questions I don’t mind your butts.

Forgive me for asking though but did I make claim to speaking in tongues? And if I did, why would you say, "I don't believe you do"? And why would you believe, if I did, that I was deceiving myself? Do you see me as ungodly and therefore God would not give me such a ‘highly spiritual gift’ as you put it?

What I am, I am - and to God I am responsible for whatever gift He has given me. If I say he has given me a certain gift, then he most certainly has. But you may need to rethink a couple of things – especially if you want to judge whether I am godly or not.

 

[lecoop]

Where did Paul speak in tongues?

Paul spent many hours praying in tongues.

[quote:539c6]This is not "charismatic rhetoric;" it is the word of God.

This simply is not true. Please show me this scripture that says that Paul prayed in a personal prayer language.

It is pure logic, Dave. Paul said "I speak in tongues more than you all;" yet also said that in a meeting, he would rather speak 5 words with understanding (not in tongues) so that he could be understood. Where then, did Paul spend all his time speaking in tongues, so that he could say he did it more than anyone else? The obvious answer is, he spent much time in his prayer life, praying in tongues. In fact, he tells us that: "I will pray in the spirit..." He is saying that he will spend time praying in tongues.

The perfect prayer is one from the heart with our understanding, as Paul told us.

Now it is my turn. Please show me this scripture that says the perfect prayer is one from the heart with our understanding.

Nowhere in scripture is it taught that languages give us a deeper spiritual connection or a superior prayer. It's just not there.

Of course it is there: you have just not seen it. If the Holy Spirit gave you word for word, a prayer in English, would it not be the perfect prayer for that time? Of course it would, for it would have come from the heart of God. This is exactly what happens when a beleiver prays in tongues. The Holy Spirit gives the utterance (and assigns the meaning to that utterance) and the prayer prays it out in tongues. I can be nothing but a perfect prayer, for God is the author of it.

When Jesus gave an example of how we should pray, it was in a clear and understandable prayer. Every example of prayer in scripture is clear and understandable. When Deity prayed to Deity at Gathsemine, it was clear and understandable.

Without the sign, tongues becomes a hinderance. They can do nothing that every saved person cannot already do more efficiantly, with less confusion, less restrictions, more Biblically and more profitable in their normal language.

This is just your spin, for you get hung up on the sign. Paul had more understanding of tongues than you do, and he must have spent many hours each week praying in tongues, for he declared that he did it more than any other. Did he think he was wasting his time? Definitely not!

coop, the Charismatic/Pentecostal churches are building their church on rebukes, and as a result, they are recreating the error of the immature Corinthian church. You have recreated Babylon. Listed below is the sin of the church in Corinth. Does this sound familiar? It does to me because I spent three years watching it happen from inside.

Just because you have no faith in God's word concerning tongues, does not mean that the Pentecostal church as a whole (all people who have received the baptism with the HS, with the initial evidence of tongues) has the same lack of faith. On the contrary, we believe and therefore speak. It is only your spin, from your lack of understanding, that makes you think of Babylon.

"They were the church that didn't understand true spirituality, who allowed all their pagan religious practices to creep into the church (12:2). They were worldly, divisive, opinionated, cliquish, carnal, fleshly, envious, strife-ridden, argumentative, puffed up, self- glorying, smug, immoral, compromising with sin, defrauding each other, fornicating, depriving in marriage, offending weaker Christians, lusting after evil things, idolatrous, fellowshipping with demons, insubordinate, gluttonous, drunken, selfish toward the poor, and desecrating the Lord's Table."

This sounds like many denominational church of today, sorry to say.

"I wish you all spoke in tongues"

First, Paul wishes this for the sake of emphasis, secondly, Paul would not presume to improve on the Holy Spirit's wisdom. Third, it would be impossible and contrary to God's sovereign plan for everyone to have the gift of tongues.

This is your spin, because you do not understand the different manifestations of tongues. The "gift of tongues" (tongues used to give a message from the HS to a local body of believers) is only one manifestation of tongues, and the least used, at least for Paul. He used tongues mainly as a prayer language. When Paul wished that all spoke in tongues, he was referring to the prayer language that is available to all who can believe and receive the baptism with the HS. When and if you understand the great benefit of praying in tongues, you would understand that God has made this available to all, and it is His plan for all members of His church.

12:10 ....................to another ( not all ) different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.

19 And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

30................Do all speak with tongues?.....................( the implied answer is no )

Of course the implied answer is no, but this does not even relate to the prayer language that God has made available to all. Of course not all will have the gift of miracles. Of course not all will have gifts of healings. I think most people undestand this.


"I wish" I'll give you a perfect example of what Paul means here.

7:7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself ( unmarried ). But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

Paul wishes that everyone could devote all their time and energy towards serving God in singleness but quickly establishes the fact that God's perfect will has other plans. He stated that "he wished all" for the sake of emphasis.

"18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than you all;"

Paul did not condem the true gift of languages, even though he was rebuking the Corinthians for their use of Pagan mystery religion gibberish. He was also establishing the fact that if anyone would know what the true gift was, it would be him. Who "spoke tongues more than them all", Mostly if not all of their tongues were not the true.

You have such a poor understanding of what Paul was teaching. If I were you, I would go back and study it again, without your preconceived glasses on. Paul was bringing correction, not rebuke. He was training them in the proper use of tongues - something that few today understand. Gibberish? Yes! Why else would Paul say, "no man understands?" This is such a simple phrase: why is this so difficult for you to grasp? No man understands, because it is a "made up" lanugage, created by the HS for a prayer in His perfect will. Now what you have done, is assigned what comes from the HS as "pagan mystery religion gibberish." This is not wise at all. It is exactly what the Pharisees did. You grieve the Holy Spirit.

The gift of tongues was not for all saints.

Hence, it is not necessary for salvation.

Who ever said it was? The baptism with the Holy Spirit is for all saints, but it is not salvation or regeneration; it is a second work of the Holy Spirit as the anointing. Jesus said, "I am anointed to......" God wants us to have the same anointing, and He gives this through the baptism with the HS. You don't believe this, so you will just have to do without.

Hence, it is not necessary for spiritual growth, as it is not for all saints.

The baptism with the HS is for all the saints. John said, I will baptize you with water, but He that is coming will baptize you with the Holy Ghost. When then, would you think that this would only be for a select few? Regeneration is the HS within, while the anointing is the HS upon: ahuge difference. The tongues that comes with this baptism is our prayer language, designed by God so that we can pray the perfect prayer any time we desire. You could say that the tongues, the initial evidence of the baptism, is the "frosting" on the cake.



Paul, what are tongues for?

20 Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature.
21In the law it is written:


"With men of other tongues and other lips
I will speak to this people;
And yet, for all that, they will not hear Me,"


says the Lord.

22 Therefore tongues are for a sign

not to those who believe but to unbelievers;

but prophesying is not for unbelievers but for those who believe.[/quote:539c6]

You sure are hung up on this one manifestation of tongues. Please tell me, what if God brought tongues and interpretation in a meeting, and there were only believers there? Who would the sign then be for? When Paul is praying in tongues, who is the sign then for? Your lack of understanding causes you great confusion. When Paul prays in tongues, it is not as a sign to unbelievers; it is an entirely different manifestation of tongues. Where were the unbelievers in Acts 19? Where were the unbelievers in Acts 10?

 

[lecoop]

I know what some of you are saying about those who believe they are more spiritual than others when it comes to something like tongues.

The issue for me though is not tongues. It is this damnable doctrine that says that there are two experiences. One, salvation (or being born again) and two, baptism in the Holy Spirit (with the so-called evidence of speaking in tongues). Now I believe in being born again and I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but not as two experiences.

And here is where your doctrine takes a left turn from what Luke wrote. Go back and study Acts 8 and Acts 19 without your preconceived glasses on, and you will notice that these folks were already born again and water baptized when the received this second work of the Holy Spirit. It is the anointing, not regeneration. It is the HS upon, not the HS within There is a huge difference.


And this is where many in Christendom have been led astray. They take a record of an event (as it is recorded in Acts) and they turn it into doctrine, not realizing (although I wonder sometimes) that they have become self-righteous Pharisees.

Excuse me, but it is the non-believers that accuse the believers that become the Pharisees. They declared that Jesus did the works by and through the power of Satan, when it was the Holy Spirit doing the work. I see little difference between what they, the Pharisees, said and what you are saying.


“Oh I thank-you Lord that you have saved me. And I thank you that you have Baptised me in your Holy Spirit†– while inwardly looking down on those who have not received what they see as the evidence of their ‘gift.’ The ‘proof’ that they are a Christian.

It is never those with the baptism with the HS looking down, it is all others looking at us. Why then do you make such an accustion? Perhaps it is the HS inside convicting you. Tongues were never used in the scriptures as proof of salvation, but of the baptism with the HS.

How sad it is for these who wallow around in their own self-righteousness believing that they are ‘special’. And when one avows that he has received the Holy Spirit (and let Christ be the judge of that) the self-righteous say – “prove it!†They either want you to speak in tongues or believe something that your spirit will just not allow.

Why don't you just believe what God has written? Does not the word say, "for we heard them speak with tongues?" Do you have a problem with your righteousness, since you accuse others of self-righteousness? We all wear the robe of Jesus' righteousness! God sees us all as righteous! Why don't you believe what Paul said: " I would that you all spoke with tongues?" All includes you! God is saying that he wishes you spoke in tongues, rather than criticize those that do.


Hey, there is nothing to prove. No-one is accountable to another man as far as his relationship with God is concerned. As the scripture says, “Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the ord is able to make him stand.â€Â

I agree!

 

[Georges]

I believe that it is possible to speak in tongues...

However it must be in the context of Acts 2 and Exodus 19....


Exodus 19 is the very first Pentecost (Shavout in Judaism).....

Exd 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that [was] in the camp trembled.

According to the Rabbis the thunders were actually voices proclaiming the Torah to the 70 known languages of the world at that time....


Acts 2 is the Exd 19 repeated at Jerusalem ......again this happened on the latter Pentecost...

Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Act 2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
Act 2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

The languages spoken were "known" languages....not incoherent babble....if someone is speaking in tongues, it best be understood by someone in the group or it is bogus babbling.....(a fake).

 

[Dave...]

You sure are hung up on this one manifestation of tongues. Please tell me, what if God brought tongues and interpretation in a meeting, and there were only believers there? Who would the sign then be for? When Paul is praying in tongues, who is the sign then for? Your lack of understanding causes you great confusion. When Paul prays in tongues, it is not as a sign to unbelievers; it is an entirely different manifestation of tongues. Where were the unbelievers in Acts 19? Where were the unbelievers in Acts 10?

I'm hung up on it because todays false manifistations are the door that leads to the world. I have personally seen many lives destroyed by these imature churches in just about any way you could imagine. While you are gloating of your spiritual superioity, keep a look out of the corner of your eye and pay attention to the people walking back out the door in worse shape than they were when they came in.

I don't know everything, but I clearly see the spiritual blindness of the people who are defending tongues on this thread. I wish it were more abvious to you. I 'm not saying that for any other reason than to express my frustration in trying to have a meaningful discussion that can accomplish something. This is impossible if you ignore the points of my posts. You guys are willfully blind and you show it with every post.

This happens just as much in non-Charasmatic churches as Charasmatic and to use it to prove that Charasmatic Churches are in the wrong by believing that tongues exist today is fallacious.

I go by what I see, and the testimony of the many that have left the charismatic pentecostal churches. It's the same report every time.

A charismatic pentecostal church is so very far from a solid, truth loving, Bible believing church that it's not even funny. I know, i've been part of both.

Incorrect. There is no distinguishing between Paul's gift of tongues and that used by people in the Corinthian Church. The difference is in the "how," not in the "what". If you disagree then prove with Scripture that the gift of tongues in the Corinthian Church was pagan. Again, you are fallaciously "poisoning the well".

How many times must you be shown this before you see it? Do you want to have a "no bull" real discussion, where you cannot overlook points made and must answer all questions with the best of your ability? I'm all for it, but what is happening on this thread is not that.

 

[Dave...]

let me know when you guys want to quite playing games and have a real discussion that will be profitable.