Tongues
- Thread starter Grace
- Start date
RJ
Active
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 4,080
We can not put the same rules on all expression of tongues! If we do not understand the different kinds of tongues
Please show me scripture that supports the above. I don't see how you can equate us making the rules with the same as God?
How did you not get my post? Are you reading it?? I said the Bible sets the rules that we should be making (using) ourself. Not adding to or taking away...not ignoring what scriptures have already declared.We can not put the same rules on all expression of tongues! If we do not understand the different kinds of tongues
Please show me scripture that supports the above. I don't see how you can equate us making the rules with the same as God?
RJ
Active
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 4,080
I have read fine,thank you, and what I have read from the beginning of our talk about tongues to now, all see a contradiction in your belief as related to scripture, so between us we are not capable of agreeing to what the truth is. I have always said that tongues is a valid spiritual gift and you have a right to worship as you wish and you have a right to interpret how God wants you to use your tongues. Over all the Bible is clear about edifying the church and that it is better to just prophesy rather than use tongues. You make too much out of tongues rather than prophesying . This is your choice but I don't have to agree with it. God bless you spiritual growth in the future and I am, politely backing out of further discussion about tongues with you!
Dovegiven
Active
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,083
"Should be", but not commanded. Paul offered reasons why they ought to do it that way. The issue was everyone attending had something to let out of their mouth at once.
Chaos? Even if some had a nice song that would touch hearts, or a prophecy someone needed to hear?
Let's go back to 1 Corinthians 14:1-2 (KJV)
1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
I don't find a bit of condemnation of that in verse 2. Yes, it is "better" to prophesy, communicating with all hearers clearly without needing an interpreter. Nobody is arguing that.
If no interpreter, then the speaker is still speaking to God, and speaks mysteries. It is the Holy Spirit who helps us pray when we don't have a prayer to utter, so what is spoken in tongues is not self generated. It then is manifested as a sign to the unbelievers. Prophecy is a sign to believers.
1 Corinthians 14:4-5 (KJV)
4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
So the speaker in unknown tongues without an interpreter is lesser than the other. Actually, few in any church meeting could be counted in the "greater" number, but all should be comfortable with tongues. Is there harm to the majority lessers who can't or will not prophesy?
If a pastor wants, and the congregation allows, the members to exercise the gifts in a service, albeit imperfectly, is the church sinning? We are speaking of one person at a time, the usual custom these days, to exercise one gift at a time, not creating havoc in an assembly accepting of tongues. It might be there are many more with the gift of interpretation than prophecy that get the understanding, yet not standing and speaking. None are commanded to perform it.
I will not curse your teaching, brother, over a debate between the greatest of scholars since the second century. One side says the 120 spoke in unearthly heavenly languages, while the other insists each of the 120 spoke in an earthly language not known to the speaker. Either way it was a miracle, given by God to the saving of 3,000 that day.
Dovegiven
Active
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,083
Probably all of us have been through what follows, but perhaps some haven't.
I want to define "tongues", which we needed to do right off. It takes looking at the Greek.
Acts 2:2-3 (KJV)
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.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
"toungues" is from Gr "glossa". The cloven tongues were supernatural.
Acts 2:4 (KJV) 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Nothing they said was learned, but given by the Holy Spirit to say. They spoke the "tongues" from Gr. "glossa".
"other tongues" is from Gr. "heteros glossa" meaning other or another tongue.
The Greek glossa isn't a representative of a local language.
Acts 2:6 (KJV) 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 "language" is from Gr. dialektos, meaning a known language (dialect), in this case the specific dialects of every man in the multitude present.
A dialect is a sub-set of a language, based on geography, culture, social groups within a culture. There are thousands of dialects in the world, fewer languages, apparently far
fewer than in the ancient past, as dialects die off, so do languages. 364 dialects of Spanish in Mexico are endangered.
Many nations were represented at the feast, in that temple courtyard. Every man heard the message of the 120 in their dialects, not just language. For the geography recorded there
could have been hundreds of dialects, dozens of languages. Only God could have performed this miracle, similar to what He did at the tower of Babel, where their one language became many.
Acts 2:7-12 (KJV)
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
The "tongue" in v. 8 is English "dialect".
The tongue in v. 11 is from Gr. glossa in the context of other similar uses of "tongues" concerning actual languages. An example is
Acts 22:2 (KJV) 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Those are enough evidence for me to take the age old side of the debate that the 120 spoke in what we all know as the "unknown" tongues of 1 Cor 14. The 120 spoke from the
anointing of the cloven tongues that came upon each of them, then speaking supernatural glossa as given by the Holy Spirit, which was heard/interpreted by each hearer in his own dialect from where he was born.
The speaking was supernatural, and so was the hearing, confounding the men. They heard the natural sounds, but God spoke directly to each man of the wonderful works of Christ, not in a language
of understanding from any one disciple.
I want to define "tongues", which we needed to do right off. It takes looking at the Greek.
Acts 2:2-3 (KJV)
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.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
"toungues" is from Gr "glossa". The cloven tongues were supernatural.
Acts 2:4 (KJV) 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Nothing they said was learned, but given by the Holy Spirit to say. They spoke the "tongues" from Gr. "glossa".
"other tongues" is from Gr. "heteros glossa" meaning other or another tongue.
The Greek glossa isn't a representative of a local language.
Acts 2:6 (KJV) 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 "language" is from Gr. dialektos, meaning a known language (dialect), in this case the specific dialects of every man in the multitude present.
A dialect is a sub-set of a language, based on geography, culture, social groups within a culture. There are thousands of dialects in the world, fewer languages, apparently far
fewer than in the ancient past, as dialects die off, so do languages. 364 dialects of Spanish in Mexico are endangered.
Many nations were represented at the feast, in that temple courtyard. Every man heard the message of the 120 in their dialects, not just language. For the geography recorded there
could have been hundreds of dialects, dozens of languages. Only God could have performed this miracle, similar to what He did at the tower of Babel, where their one language became many.
Acts 2:7-12 (KJV)
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this?
The "tongue" in v. 8 is English "dialect".
The tongue in v. 11 is from Gr. glossa in the context of other similar uses of "tongues" concerning actual languages. An example is
Acts 22:2 (KJV) 2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Those are enough evidence for me to take the age old side of the debate that the 120 spoke in what we all know as the "unknown" tongues of 1 Cor 14. The 120 spoke from the
anointing of the cloven tongues that came upon each of them, then speaking supernatural glossa as given by the Holy Spirit, which was heard/interpreted by each hearer in his own dialect from where he was born.
The speaking was supernatural, and so was the hearing, confounding the men. They heard the natural sounds, but God spoke directly to each man of the wonderful works of Christ, not in a language
of understanding from any one disciple.
I am enjoying the discussion, I would like to add just two small points. First while Paul did not forbid tongues, he seemed to be explaining to the church at Corinth, that they were meaningless unless used in particular ways and for particular reasons. 1 Cor 14:6 "Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine? Here Paul is asking what good is accomplished by speaking in an unknown tongue. Paul dedicated a large portion of 1 Corinthians beginning in chapter 12, and continuing through chapter 14, showing the church why tongues were not needed. In 1 Cor 12:6 "But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal." he begins to explain the reasons for spiritual gifts. In chapter 13 he shows the superiority of Faith, Hope, and Love, over Gifts. (note he begins chapter with a reference to tongues) In chapter 14 he drives the point home, 1 Cor 14:15 "What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. If I speak any words without understanding what I am saying I may feel like I'm talking to God, but how do I know ? Remember the gifts are given to "Profit withal" it is of no benefit to you or me if I speak words that neither of us understand. Just wanted to add a few words, God bless.
Paul was correcting the misuse of tongues in a gathering. Like you said, he did not forbid them.
Dovegiven
Active
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,083
It's always good to see someone is enjoying a discussion. The only answer I know of to your question is 1 Corinthians 14:2 (KJV)
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
I believe Eph 6:20 verifies that the Holy Spirit gives a door of utterance to us, Himself speaking to God in a manner mysterious to us who move our mouth in utterance. In Acts 2 the 120 experienced that for their first time, having no rules how to go about it, resulting in many hearers understanding a message from God in their own selves, in their own languages, without an interpreter. Paul's main concern about not having an interpreter speaking after people hear a message in unknown tongues is of course wisdom, especially if a church is lacking order concerning spiritual gifts.
There have been some wonderful happenings in many services I've attended, and had reported to me, when "high praise" was underway, what some call "the cloud was heavy with the Spirit", times when even usually stone faced men break from their facade with tears, crying sometimes, shaking, maybe hands high waving. With practically everyone moving their lips uttering something, "rattling the windows" so to speak, my feeling is often the rapture surely is about to happen, "rapturous", that is exceedingly joyful, excited in the spirit. I and others sometimes drop to the knees in worship, would be on my face if there was room in the pews.
Then comes someone speaking or singing in a beautiful unknown tongue, sometimes sounding like it might be known somewhere on earth. Suddenly the congregation is moving out of the pews, soon most at the altar. That's when most people, members or not, that were not believers or had not fully committed tend to respond much like the crowd did in Acts 2, very emotionally crying out to God. That is before the preacher gives a sermon, which sometimes is skipped, the service becoming one of personal ministry.
My explanation is that like the men listening to the 120 disciples, even lost people can hear the Holy Spirit speak to them in their own understanding while in the presence of such anointing, in the right place at God's timing. If your church exercises the gifts like tongues, of course it is right to have an interpreter. But when the congregation immediately responds like I described, none would hear an interpreter. The only person able to speak intelligibly and be heard would be whoever is holding a microphone, usually the pastor, who often supplies words of understanding. It's in such times we've seen really rough bikers, troubled ex-convicts, adulterers, 80-90 year olds, at last yield to Jesus. That church will not argue with particular rules of order when the results of the meeting are phenomenal, simply because all involved
were blessed.
The way I'm looking at this issue is there are two types of church meetings to consider. Those not including tongues in worship are understandably not likely to appreciate a message in tongues at all, especially if there's no understanding. The congregation is satisfied to sing from hymnals, maybe cite some scriptures in unison, otherwise keep lips shut, letting all the ministry flow from the pulpit and choir. They are not likely to wander into and remain in any brand of pentecostal meeting. The second is a church that has an order of service prepared to edify everyone, even lost sinners. They are the ones already confused, unable to believe, not understanding the Bible, resiting it, with arms folded and sitting on the very back row. What harm if they hear tongues without an official interpreter if the service in whole offers anointing for them to be reached?
It's a very rare thing for someone to just break forth with tongues, then sit down without interpretation in any services I've attended. It doesn't happen because most churches accepting of tongues know about 1 Cor 14. Somehow the Spirit sets it all straight, and people are saved, edified, and enter into the joy of the Lord.
