Posted on 03/11/2006 5:42:09 AM PST by WKB
It says that when that which is perfect, meaning the Bible, is finished, then revelatory gifts i.e. tongues will be taken back.
Shut up and have a refreshing glass of powdered beverage.
Absolutely.
The main point of language is to pass information to others by communicating. Speaking in tongues in public and not being understood is not communication. It is not a miracle. It is a farcical display.
That being said, one man speaking in his own language to God is not "speaking in tongues." God understands what he is saying so it shouldn't be an issue.
It suggests speaking in toungues, which was demostrated at pentecost, but it doesn't support a 'private prayer language.'
Speaking in tongues? yes. In accordance with God's word, especially, but there is nothing to support some private language between a man and his God.
It hokey hogwash by over enthused, misled christians.
If I were one of them I'd be confused, too, especially if that's what they were really calling themselves. I've heard of Baptists but never Babtists until now.
Actually, there is, but it looks like you've already made up your mind and don't want to be convinced, so that's ok. Praying in tongues is not a salvation issue anyway; it's one of the gifts of the Spirit, and even St. Paul said there were other gifts that he felt we should ask God for first.
The Bible says that when we pray in an unknown tongue (or language) we edify ourselves (build ourselves up). This is not the kind of building ourselves up to puff up our egos, it is a building up of our faith.
Praying in tongues is the enabling of our spirit by the Holy Spirit to do something that is not comprehensible to our natural mind. It requires us to put aside our "logic and wisdom" and let our spiritual side connect with the Spirit of God.
This operation of the gift of tongues is different than being able to speak to someone from a foreign land and have them hear you in their own language. It is different from the speaking in tongues that is accompanied by an interpretation and is meant for the body of believers. All of these are manifestations of the gift of speaking in tongues, and all of them have their proper place and usage, and are backed up by Scripture.
I find for most people, the whole issue of speaking or praying in tongues is a personal preference issue. Kind of like some people like chocolate ice cream, some like strawberry. Me, I like vanilla. It's all still ice cream. If you don't have a preference for the gift of tongues in your walk with the Lord, then you are not likely to seek out that gift. You may operate in other gifts of the Spirit, and God may even have built you up in those gifts more than most. My point would be that I would be careful about calling someone's personal, spiritual experiences with God "hogwash" just because you don't have a spiritual understanding of it, or maybe don't even want to.
No, the unbeliever would be unconverted by tongues if he did not understand that particular tongue.
That is why a interpreter was necessary.
However, if an unbeliever came in when prophecy (for the purpose of edification) was going on, he would benefit from that.
Also, tongues were to be given in order, so the unbeliever would not consider the church in a state of confusion.
In conclusion, even when tongues was in operation it was considered the least of all the gifts.
Yes, the least, but even the least of the gifts from our loving God shouldn't be impuned.
I've already made up my mind because the bible does not support, and actually discourages, ecstatic babblings. Coupled with christian maturity, I refuse to dishonor God by babbling at him in gibberish. If He really is God, and he is omniscient, He does not require or need me to babble ecstatically at Him.
Praying in tongues is not a salvation issue anyway; it's one of the gifts of the Spirit,
Praying in tongues is not only NOT a salvation issue, it's not even a biblical issue. Do you mean speaking in tongues? I spoke in tongues once, in Mexico. I spoke english and a mexican national spoke spanish. We both understood each other. it greatly increased my faith. However, I've never prayed in tongues. There is no such biblical idea and God does not needed it.
The Bible says that when we pray in an unknown tongue (or language) we edify ourselves (build ourselves up). This is not the kind of building ourselves up to puff up our egos, it is a building up of our faith.
First: The bible, in I Cor 14:, says "speak" not "pray".
Second: Paul is using sarcasm. Gifts are to be used to build up others in the church, they are not for building up one's self. That idea is anathema to the bible.
Last: They were originally intended to demonstrate to the jews of the diaspora, that God was doing a new thing.
Praying in tongues is the enabling of our spirit by the Holy Spirit to do something that is not comprehensible to our natural mind. It requires us to put aside our "logic and wisdom" and let our spiritual side connect with the Spirit of God.
God desires to be worhsipped in spirit and in truth. It is impossible to worship Him apart from understanding. The word "logic" comes from the greek logos.
Isaiah 43:10
Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servants whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
The idea is that people will know and understand. Any religion can offer ecstatic babbling, based on emotionalism and apart from any truth or logic, but Jehovah is the only God that offers truth and understanding. To babble ecstatically is silly and childish at best -- idolatry at worst.
This operation of the gift of tongues is different than being able to speak to someone from a foreign land and have them hear you in their own language. It is different from the speaking in tongues that is accompanied by an interpretation and is meant for the body of believers. All of these are manifestations of the gift of speaking in tongues, and all of them have their proper place and usage, and are backed up by Scripture.
You make a distinction between praying in tongues and the biblical use of speaking in tongues. You then state that it is supported biblically. It's not and I can't seem to locate it in my bible after innumerable, careful, prayerful study of it.
I find for most people, the whole issue of speaking or praying in tongues is a personal preference issue. . . . My point would be that I would be careful about calling someone's personal, spiritual experiences with God "hogwash" just because you don't have a spiritual understanding of it, or maybe don't even want to.
I have a mature, biblical understanding of the ecstatic babbling that charismatics perform and pretend is biblical. I won't we swayed, not because I am some egotistical narrow minded fundamentalist, but because ecstatic babbling is unbiblical and hogwash.
If you were more mature or less stubborn, you might realize your biblical error.
You claim there is no Biblical support, yet every time anyone has offered it on this thread you have dismissed it because it doesn't fit with your personal theology, so you therefore choose to ignore it.
1Cor.14:2 says, "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. For no one hears, but in spirit he speaks mysteries." You want to try and make the distinction between speaking and praying, but when you pray to God, are you not speaking to Him? What do you think it is if not speaking to Him? Duuhhh!!
But I guess if that makes you comfortable to try and split hairs like the Pharisees were fond of doing, then go ahead. Just don't tell me about your "mature biblical understanding" when all you do is label, ridicule, name call, and display your close-mindedness.
Yeah, you've got it all figured out.
Yeah, I thought I was pretty clear about that. Biblical maturity forces me to recognize that "praying in toungues" is exactly what Christ forbade and what Paul discourages.
and that you have decided in your infinite wisdom
I never said that I had infinite wisdom. Now who is ridiculing?
to label things you can't or don't want to understand as "ecstatic babblings".
As I said previously, I have studied the bible numerous times, both carefully and prayerfully. Why is it that you insist that I can't or won't understand something that I have admittedly studied very carefully. Is that you displaying your close-mindedness?You seem to really like that particular phrase.
I like it because it is accurate.
Good to know that you have such a "mature" understanding of scripture.
Sacasm. Ridiculing. Pot meet kettle.
Maybe you can hire yourself out to God as a consultant.
More of the same and without substance.
you're laughable.
1Cor.14:2 says, "For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. For no one hears, but in spirit he speaks mysteries."
Paul makes a distinction that speaking in tongues does not edify others. Only God can understand. But God being omniscient already understands. Paul is being sarcastic in this sentence. It is only logical.
You want to try and make the distinction between speaking and praying,
I make a distinction because Paul makes a distinction. The word says "speak", not "pray".
but when you pray to God, are you not speaking to Him?
Yes. but the word specifically says, "speaking in tongues, " not "praying in tongues" Why do you insist on changing God's word?
What do you think it is if not speaking to Him? Duuhhh!!
More of your own ridiculing? God is omniscient. He does not need you to babble incoherently. It does you, others and Him no good.
Just don't tell me about your "mature biblical understanding" when all you do is label, ridicule, name call, and display your close-mindedness. Again -- Pot meet kettle. You're laughable.
Yeah, you've got it all figured out.
If you are referring to the issues of "tongues" then yes I do. If you were more mature and less stubborn you would also.
There are a number of gifts no longer in operation also, such as healing and prophecy (foretelling the future).
Tongues served its purpose and is no longer a legimate gift.
Since you're so hung up on thinking that I've blurred the difference (a difference you want to make) between "speaking" in tongues, and "praying" in tongues, let's take a look at 1 Cor. 14:14-15: "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive. What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also."
Paul is laying out his point in the classic style that he was well trained in; he lays out his case with all the sides, and then presents his question. He then goes on to provide the answer. This is the style. Paul does not use sarcasm, as you've wrongly asserted. He was trained as a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee, and studied not only under the best of the Jewish teachers, but he also was familiar with the classic style of debate since he was also a Roman citzen by birth and he received the benefits of a classical education as well.
So first, he acknowledges that when he prays in a tongue, it is his spirt praying. But he wants to point out that this, by itself, is insufficient - "...my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive." Then he poses the question, what am I to do?
Next, he lays out the answer: "I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also." Paul doesn't throw away praying in a tongue, he demonstrates the need for the complete package, that balance that provides the greatest benefit. He says we should do both.
Never in Paul's writing does he use sarcasm. You have wrongly interpreted his style as sarcasm because you don't understand (or don't want to) the classic style of presenting evidence for an arguement that Paul was so well trained in. You assert that "It's only logical."
As for my tone of sarcasm in responding to you? That was absolutely intended. You vainly imagine that I "unwittingly" got "caught" using the very thing I was accusing you of. It was completely intentional. I figured that it was the only way I might be able to get through the arrogance and pride that was oozing from your smug ramblings.
One last note: Christian maturity is self-evident, not self-proclaimed.
Poor conjecture based on misinterpretations of scritpure.
Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
Tongues won't pass away until knowledge passes away, and that won't occur until Christ returns.
1 Cor 1:7 "Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed."
rats...I am never going to get the hang of HTML.
Really?
When the purpose of the gift was for unbelieving Jews (1Cor.14:21) who were suppose to receive signs (1Cor.1:22).
Now, in the initial stage of Christianity, the Gospel was to go first to the Jew and then to the Gentile.
It was only after the rejection by the Jew that the Gospel was to go to both equally.
Tongues was for the evangelism of the Jew and ceased when Israel ceased to be a nation in 70 AD.
Romans 11:29 "For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
Really?
So we still have Apostles?
We still have the gift of healing?
We still have people predicting the future?
So some gifts were transitional.
In fact, in Romans you do not see the gift of tongues even mentioned (it being a later book).
We know that Paul eventually lost the gift of healing because he could not heal his own friend (2Tim.4:20).
Romans 11 is speaking to the fact that God has made an unconditional Covenant with Israel, and that Covenant will be completed (Rom.11:25-26)
Tongues won't pass away until knowledge passes away, and that won't occur until Christ returns.
No Tongues, Prophecy and knowledge were temporary gifts, as Paul states in the next verse, they were for children, when I spake as a child (tongues), I understood as a child (prophecy), I thought as a child (knowledge) were all gifts that in function to stabilize the local church until the Canon of Scripture (NT) was complete.
Paul put away childish things and thought as a man, not as a child, that was his admonition against the Corinthians, to grow up, and go from milk to meat (1Cor.3:1-2)
1 Cor 1:7 "Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed."
And the Corinthians were rebuked in 1st Corinthians for their licentious and immature behavior.
Paul makes it very clear in 1Cor. that the issue is not the gift but the fruit one bears (1Cor.13).
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.