Posted on 04/21/2016 4:33:42 PM PDT by pastorbillrandles
I praise God for your testimony brother, thats for sharing because I know it will be of help to any who have ears to hear. I thought of the song, “Through many danger toils and snares, I have already come, his Grace has brought me safe thus fr, and grace will lead me home”. I also happen to believe what you are saying about the need to repent of these things, in fact I keep urging it of those who participated in all of this. Repentance is one of the reasons I am led to revisit this subject, people need a “Re-think” and to change their mind and turn around...towards God. Thanks so much my brother and friend...
Lest we forget, the Bible teaches that no man should be speaking in tongues in a group/gathering unless there is someone there to interpret for the hearers. THE FATHER is not the author of confusion ...
The tongues were the multiple foreign languages that the disciples spoke and those foreign languages were heard and understood by the many different countrymen in the crowd as per Acts. Acts was written by Luke who was present. You are referring to Corinthians which was written by Paul who was Saul until he went on the road to Damascus.
He that speaks in an unknown tongue speaks not unto men but unto God, no man understands him, in the Spirit he speaks mysteries 1 Cor 14:1-4
Not necessarily. Speaking in "unknown" language was referred to in 1 Corinthians 14, the language known nor even to the speaker. At the time of the First Baptist Church of Corinth, there were also pagan mystery cults engaging in glossolalia, which novices in Christianity thought would achieve a nice embellishment to personal or public prayer.
How Paul nicely but inoffensively handled the public manifestation was by insisting that another interpreter tell what the language meant. Of course, there could be none for a tongue not known by humans, and the correct translation/interpretation of a language not known by most of the constitutents would have to be verified by the speaker and any hearer for which the translation was made, by comparing a message or prophetic utterance with the known context of the paradoses (oral precepts taught by the apostles), or their inspired writings, or the canon of the Tanach, which we call the "Old Testament."
Of course, making mumbojumbo not even known by the speaker might seem to keep his/her mind off of other things, keeping a wakeful ingenuity from imagining futile stray or evil thoughts, but that kind of occurrence would be uninterpretable, and hence of no profitable or practical use whatsoever. It just keeps the mind in neutral gear.
Again, the chief key to understanding this is to explain to yourself and others the meaning of verse 1 of 1 Corinthians 13. Is what is being sid just selfish, uninterpretable, time-wasting, and without meaning (like a whistle, or banging garbage can lid, or oral flatulence); or is it a true expression, not of affection, but of agape love, a communication demonstrating a sovereign preference above one over self and others. Did God speak in the kind of "tongues" invented at Azusa Street a hundred years ago, and cause it to be written down for our eternal benefit? Of course, NO! And no one today knows exactly what that manifestation sounded like back in the first century, so we cannot even imitate it. Take it for what it is worth.
If not understood (and who does?), then leave it alone. Don't twist the dog's ears, eh?
Paul said it would die out of its own accord, as people became more interested in mature Bible instruction than childishness.
The significance of the Pentecostal utterances were, as you pointed out, heard by people knowing languages foreign to Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. But there were up to 120 pre-Pentecostal believers doing the speaking. Whether they knew what they were saying is up for grabs, not affirmed or denied in the passage of Acts 2.
We need to give the Holy Spirit all the latitude in the writings He allows for Himself to permit outlier "ifs"; but restraints He puts on the narrative through grammar and context must be obeyed, for the Spirit is very precise in what He says and what He does not say.
The Bible is comprehensive, but not exhaustive, if you get the drift.
No it does not. My wife is Catholic and the Catholic bible says it was 9 in the morning. I agree with you.
Paul made four journeys. Saul/Paul was well educated and was fairly high in the Jewish hierarchy before he became Paul. I am uncomfortable with your views and they are not as I believe.
The Lord is very clear to me as at the end of Revelations is:
A Warning
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plaques which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
That is true. The last we know of (an some think there may have been one to Iberia, that is not recorded) was to Rome, from which some of his letters were written.
Saul/Paul was well educated . . .
That is also quite true. He was in training under Rabbi ben Gamaliel, supposedly to be a teacher himself of the Sanhedrin. Furthermore, after his salvation he was trained for about three years in the Gospel in the Arabian desert by the Risen Jesus Himself, Paul went back to his hometown Tarsus, a cosmopolitan Greco-Roman university town, and it is supposed that he there got a college education in Gentile philosophy and ways so as to be prepared to be a missionary to the uncircumcised Gentiles. That in itself took about eleven years.
. . . and was fairly high in the Jewish hierarchy before he became Paul.
Correct. That suggests that he might well have been married and had a child, because that was one of the prerequisites for the Sanhedrin, Of course, the married part is conjecture, but not that he was a disciple of ben Gamaliel, a Pharisee of the Pharisees.
I am uncomfortable with your views and they are not as I believe.
That is a really good and courteous way to write of your discomfort. Perhaps you could enumerate at least one or two things of what I wrote you, and see if I can explain the point I made so as to at least give us a basis for further discussion.
I believe, as you seem to, that God's progressive unveiling of His Biblical Truths came to an end upon the death of the last of the Disciple-Apostles who had been hand-picked and personally trained by Jesus of Nazareth. I do not believe in any prophecies of (for instance) the Romanists, nor of the late-coming non-Catholic "Pentecostal"/"charismatic" evangelists who claim to be prophesying of things not already treated by the Holy Scriptures.
I certainly do believe that one type of "prophesying" is simple preaching the known truths of the Bible, and of how those truths can be applied to life circumstances, including finding and training more disciples.
I am not quite clear if there is something I should infer as to this warning. Would you take the time to illuminate me on this?
And thank you for your polite responses.
Tongue is singular and therefore gibberish. There is no plural for gibberish.
fallacy...Paul is the author of I Corinthians 14, He would never say “He that speaks in gibberish speaks not unto men, but unto God” don’t let your prejudices causes you to mock and distort the Bible. Paul also said,”I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all...” We may disagree what that means but you can’t just relegate it ti gibberish...this is scripture.
I guess you think you know more then John MacArthur? 1 Corinthians 14.2 in the New American Standard Bible 2006 written by John MacArthur he clearly explains below in the Study Bible that the distinction between the singular tongue and the plural tongues is foundational to the proper interpretation of this chapter. Paul seems to use the singular to distinguish the counterfeit gift of pagan gibberish and the plural to indicate the genuine gift of a foreign language. It was perhaps in recognition of that, that the King James Version translators added consistently the word “unknown” before every singular form.
you have to be sincere when you approach scripture, you can’t come with a bias or you will concoct fanciful ways of explaining away difficult passages, it would be better to just admit you don’t understand...Paul is not speaking of a counterfeit tongue of pagan “gibberish” in 1 Cor 14:1-4
Go tell John MacArthur he is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.