miche
New Member
... among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life ... (Philippians 2:15
Posts: 47
|
Post by miche on Feb 25, 2009 20:23:41 GMT -5
Micah, haven't you met Christians obviously full of the Holy-Spirit that claim they have never spoken in tongues? Personally, I do speak in tongues, but I absolutely KNOW without a doubt that just because someone does not speak in tongues(or they claim they never have) does not mean they do not have the anointing of the Holy Spirit on them. I've witnessed it myself. My spirit has borne witness (I could clearly discern) to non-tongues speaking Christians who were definitely under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Are you really denying that they have an annointing on them because they haven't spoken in tongues first? I guess there's always the chance that they just don't know that they have spoken in tongues already... There are a lot of great men and women of God who were definitely annointed with the Holy Spirit throughout history that would claim they never spoke in tongues I think. I'm curious to hear how you would respond to this.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 25, 2009 20:58:42 GMT -5
Joe, In Acts 2 they were not going around preaching. Peter got up and preached and that was recorded. It is very clear from the text that what the disciples from the Upper Room experience were doing was much different from what Peter was doing. Peter preached a sermon. If what you are saying is true then why did people think they were drunken? Yes, so if you are talking about a prayer language then quit saying that tongues are just for preaching to people. By admitting someone can have a private prayer language of tongues you are admitting they are not just for preaching. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:1-Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels... Men and angels. Some tongues are languages of men and some are angels. Paul speaks of "diversities of tongues" in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Diversities means different types of tongues. Paul also speaks of diversities of gifts, operations and administrations. Act 2:1 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how [is it that] we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs-- we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God." 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "Whatever could this mean?" 13 Others mocking said, "They are full of new wine." It would take some real effort to twist this passage into talking about anything other than earthly languages. The only rational reason for attempting to do so would be if someone claimed the gift of tongues and could not speak multiple languages (which is exactly the case at hand). It is intellectually dishonest to claim that those in Acts 2 were speaking anything other than earthly languages. As far as prayer languages go, I believe they are earthly languages also. If someone has been given the ability to speak Arabic and there are no Arabic speaking people in the congregation, the language should only be spoken in private, as a prayer language spoken to God (which is the reason we are told not to speak in tongues without someone present who can understand the language and translate the speech for the rest of the congregation or assembly). Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 25, 2009 21:43:59 GMT -5
I think it is agreed that in Acts 2 the languages were "earthly" languages (understood by those around them), but to say that in the rest of Acts had the same effect is not scripturally sound. No place else does it say that any around could understand them in there own language.
In 1Cor 14 Paul was addressing the issue of everyone giving a message in tongues and no one around to interpret, which seems to be a problem in some circles today also.
He said it was better to speak 5 understandable words than 1000 unintelligible words. But there was to be an interpreter present to bring clarity, which was also supernatural. But no where does it say that it is to be an "earthly" language, but that an interpreter is to be present, so that the message can be understood, acting the same as prophesying, then that would edify the church and gloirfy God.
The problem i have is that i have seen too much abuse of the so-called gifts, some i have heard speak in tongues, but do not live a holy life and then others i know live a holy life that have never spoken in tongues.
The question arises then, are those people fakes, carnal or is God using whom He will even if they are not holy. And if someone lives holy, but doesn't speak in tongues, are they then not baptized in the Spirit?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 26, 2009 8:00:29 GMT -5
Obviously not;
This really isn't that complicated.
Glossa- a tongue
a) the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from that of other nations
diermçneuô - interpret
1) to unfold the meaning of what is said, explain, expound
2) to translate into one's native language
The text is clear, you just have to know how to read it (without Charismatic glasses). The majority of these early disciples spoke only Syraic. For them to proclaim the gospel and expound upon the scriptures, they needed to be able to understand the OT Hebrew and the Greek that the NT would be written in. If any of the folks here had the gift of multiple languages, they would be able to speak fluent Greek and this would not be an issue.
1) The Greek speaking Church today will tell you that this is a non-issue as the text clearly speaks of earthly languages.
2) For 1800+ years, the Church agreed that these verses were talking about earthly languages.
3) There is not a single Church Father that interpreted these verses as "un-earthly" languages, and some of them knew those at Pentecost personally.
4) The law of first mention (Acts 2) tells us that the gift of tongues has to do with earthly languages.
Aside from Pentecostal/Charismatic dogma, there is absolutely no reason that anyone would claim that the gift of tongues has anything to do with an un-earthly non-sensical language.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 26, 2009 11:53:13 GMT -5
Joe said:
Where do you get your info for these statements? i would like to study this. Some problems i have with your statements; The first statement really doesn't make any sense to me, there were many different languages understood by those present on Pentecost. 2): the KJV was finalized in 1611 and it put in itialics "unknown", they obviously didn't know what the languages were. 4) Just because that happened once doesn't mean it happened every time, at least it doesn't say so in scripture.
What about what Paul said in 1Cor 14 1Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. 3 On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. 4 The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. (ESV)
And also, 1Co 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels
And then: 1Co 14:13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret.
How does someone build up himself with speaking in a language he doesn't understand, unless he was to interpret, and then that would be for the edifying of the church.
By the way, what "glasses" are you wearing when interpreting these verses?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 26, 2009 15:50:51 GMT -5
Most basic Biblical language courses cover this, the material is not hard to find. Usually the better commentaries will point you in the right direction also.
The italics indicate that it is a word inserted and was not found in the original manuscripts. In other words, the word "unknown" was not in the scriptures.
Anyway, unknown is far different than unknowable. I meet folks all the time that speak languages that I do not know. To me they are unknown, but not unknowable or un-earthly.
The law of first mention would suggest otherwise. If the languages being spoken were not earthly languages, the text would have to expressly state that in order to negate the law of first mention.
1Cr 14:8 For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle? 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. 10 There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them [is] without significance. 11 Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks [will be] a foreigner to me.
The illustration used here is one of foreign languages, not un-earthly languages. Again, it would be a stretch to make "tongues" in this passage anything other than earthly languages.
Do you have any examples of angels speaking in languages that are un-earthly? No. Earthly? Absolutely, in every case recorded in scripture. There is no basis for stating that tongues of angels is anything other than the ability to speak to someone in their own language, at least not biblically.
Ones that are clear enough to see beyond the past 100 or even 1500 yrs of accepting gnostic interpretations of scripture. My vision lines up pretty well with the first Christians who saw these things first hand. I contend they are better witnesses of the truth than the modern charismatic movement.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 26, 2009 18:40:20 GMT -5
Joe,
Again, can you give me some specifics? Do i need to go to school or can i find certain books that will help me?
Actually i might, how about Daniel 5 MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN It doesn't specify what language, but the wise men couldn't read it. Daniel was given the interpretation.
I agree that the early church were better witnesses than the charismatic movement, but again, i would like to know your sources so that i can see it for myself. I looked in some commentaries from the ante-nicene fathers, but couldn't find anything specifically about what tongues actually are.
I appreciate you replying, i'm not looking for snide remarks, i just want to form an opinion based on scripture and past accounts. thanks
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 26, 2009 22:18:12 GMT -5
Peter Flint's work on the Dead Sea Scrolls will help you out. The DSS Bible and the corresponding commentary would be a good start. The Aramaic Jesus and the disciples spoke had all but replaced other Hebrew dialects during the 1st century.
That is actually Aramaic. It translates to a mina, a shekel and half a mina. The meaning behind the words is where the revelation came into play.
I don't have the time to thumb through all the Fathers right now but here are a few quotes spanning several hundred years. The Augustine quote is there for to show both ends of the spectrum agreed on the subject.
Irenaeus-Chapter 17 in Against Heresies Spirit...descended at the day of Pentecost upon the disciples after the Lord’s ascension, having power to admit all nations to the entrance of life, and to the opening of the new covenant; from whence also, with one accord in all languages, they uttered praise to God, the Spirit bringing distant tribes to unity, and offering to the Father the first-fruits of all nations.
Augustine says (Tract 33), "whereas even now the Holy Ghost is received, yet no one speaks in the tongues of all nations, because the Church herself already speaks the languages of all nations: since whoever is not in the Church, receives not the Holy Ghost."
Summa Theologica- Thomas Aquinas Although either was possible, namely that, while speaking in one tongue they should be understood by all, or that they should speak in all tongues, it was more fitting that they should speak in all tongues, because this pertained to the perfection of their knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to understand what was said by others. Whereas if their one language were intelligible to all, this would either have been due to the knowledge of those who understood their speech, or it would have amounted to an illusion, since a man's words would have had a different sound in another's ears, from that with which they were uttered. Hence a gloss says on Acts 2:6 that "it was a greater miracle that they should speak all kinds of tongues"; and Paul says (1 Cor. 14:18): "I thank my God I speak with all your tongues."
Origen- Christians in prayer do not even use the precise names which divine Scripture applies to God; but the Greeks use Greek names, the Romans Latin names, and every one prays and sings praises to God as he best can, in his mother tongue. For the Lord of all the languages of the earth hears those who pray to Him in each different tongue, hearing, if I may so say, but one voice, expressing itself in different dialects. For the Most High is not as one of those who select one language, Barbarian or Greek, knowing nothing of any other, and caring nothing for those who speak in other tongues.
No snide remarks intended, present or past.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 27, 2009 9:07:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the info Joe, As far as what Daniel says, i found this in Barnes commentary (it is the only one i found, that i have access to, that said anything about Daniel 5) and it gives 3 different views;
so it seems that it is not all that clear, but definitely not a language from heaven. I probably jumped the gun on that one.
But, you bring up an interesting point with the law of 1st mention, (which i have never heard of before). If the law of 1st mention is true, then when anyone is baptized in the Spirit, then wouldn't everyone speak in some other language and have "divided tongues as of fire" resting on them, and wouldn't there be a sound of a mighty rushing wind?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 27, 2009 13:48:35 GMT -5
My response was somehow deleted, so here it is again, just not as detailed. ___________________________________________________
The earlier copies of Daniel leave the writing on the wall untranslated in Aramaic, which is why I believe it was originally written in that language.
The law of first mention I speak of is in regards to the gift of tongues. Many people were filled with the Holy Spirit prior to Pentecost without ever speaking in tongues. Pentecost is not the first place we see people being indwelled by the Spirit and therefore set no precedent in that area.
Jhn 1:32 And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.'
This is usually what people consider the first Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and no sign of tongues. We do know that at various times in the OT, people were filled with the Spirit. Some prophesied, some stood strong in the face of adversity, some were given great wisdom, some lived well and some died well, some retained the Spirit and some lost the Spirit. This filling of the Spirit always enabled the individual or group to accomplish specific things for God. There was no sweeping general gift that each one was given. This was Paul’s point in his epistle to the Corinthians;
1Cr 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. 29 [Are] all apostles? [Are] all prophets? [Are] all teachers? [Are] all workers of miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healings? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a more excellent way.
The gift of tongues was the fulfilling of multiple prophecies. One of those prophecies was that the word was to go forth out of Jerusalem. Once the word had gone out from Jerusalem, the gift of languages had accomplished its work. Not being in or from Jerusalem would keep one from being part of this prophesy.
Isa 2:3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
The Spirit can still enable people to speak in multiple languages (if He chooses to do so) but according to the law of first mention (first mention of the gift of tongues) they would be intelligible, earthly languages. If He came upon folks and caused them to speak a non-language/charismatic gibberish, that would not be the same gift exercised by the Christians at Pentecost and would hardly be proof of Spirit baptism. If someone instantly receives the gift of speaking multiple earthly languages that they had not learned or been taught, and they used those languages in a godly manner, I would agree that they received the gift of tongues. If someone instantly received the ability to speak multiple languages and spoke in a filthy or ungodly manner, I would not attribute that to the Spirit, but to demons. If someone speaks in a non-language gibberish and claims it is the Spirit, I attribute that to ignorance and delusion (whether a corporate or personal delusion).
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Feb 27, 2009 15:39:19 GMT -5
Interesting discussion brothers. I am still a bit unsure about the idea that "tounges" is simply multiple earthly languages. One of the passages Steve brought up is the main one that gives me pause. It is the one saying that the one praying in tounges prays to God, and NO ONE understands. To me that also includes the one praying! Have I discerned this improperly?
Peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 27, 2009 16:36:15 GMT -5
Miche,
Yes, I have thought about that in years past and wrestled with it. However, I am using the Bible as my rule of authority and not the experiences of others.
My statement above was and I stick to it "A person has no scriptural grounds for claiming the Baptism in the Holy Ghost if they have not spoken in other tongues."
No one has been able to convince me otherwise yet or prove this to me from the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by messengermicah on Feb 27, 2009 16:41:39 GMT -5
Joe,
I thought I made it clear that I said yes on the day of Pentecost they spoke in earthly dialects as they were praising and glorifying God.
What they were not doing was going around preaching messages to people in languages they had never learned.
Peter preached the sermon on the day of Pentecost. That is clear from the text.
The other disciples were praising, worshipping, and glorifying God in other tongues (dialects) they had never learned (Acts 2:11).
You were claiming above the reason for tongues is to go and preach to others in languages we have never learned because that is what happened in Acts 2. However, it is obvious that is not what happened in Acts 2.
Go back and read my post again.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 27, 2009 21:01:38 GMT -5
No, that was what the first Pentecostals (the 20th century group) were trying to do. I didn't say that was the purpose of the outpouring at Pentecost. Sorry if I confused you with the wording. I simply contend that tongues in Acts 2 and elsewhere were earthly languages. It was Babel in reverse, not a formation of a new un-earthly language.
Here is my original post to clarify;
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 28, 2009 10:31:00 GMT -5
Hey Joe, actually it did SEEM that you meant that tongues was for preaching the gospel in a language not previously learned, unless you were being sarcastic, here was your comment:
But, anyway, just to be clear; do you think that when someone spoke/speaks in a previously un-learned language that they should understand what they are saying? And that is what the Apostles did? Because, what would be the purpose in praying for the interpretation: 1Co 14:13 Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. (ESV)
And also, i would still like to know what you do with: 1Co 14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. (ESV)
This is the one that really gives me problems with ALL the languages being earthly.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 28, 2009 17:14:58 GMT -5
Hey Joe, actually it did SEEM that you meant that tongues was for preaching the gospel in a language not previously learned, unless you were being sarcastic, here was your comment: No, that post didn't say anything about the events in Acts 2. That was a personal request as well as a legitimate one. We have a real need to reach the Laotian community here. This passage is speaking of prophesying and interpreting. Just as your example in Daniel, simply knowing the words is of little value. Knowing or interpreting the meaning of the words is crucial. When dealing with other languages, you can know the words and still not know what they mean. The conversation we are having is a perfect example. We are all reading the same passage, but each one of us have a different interpretation of the words. I can read Greek but it takes me a lot of work to translate a passage into English. You can't just translate the words, you have to understand sentence structure, word forms and countless rules of grammar associated with the language. 1Cr 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? In other words, just running our mouths doesn't equal much, no matter what language you are speaking. I think I answered this before, but I believe this refers to speaking in a language that no-one present can understand. Speaking Chinese in a room full of Mexicans does nothing to edify the Mexicans, even if God understands you. Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Feb 28, 2009 19:51:21 GMT -5
Joe, i understand everything you are saying, it is just common sense stuff, but it is really not answering the questions. Or maybe i need to pray for the interpretation, LOL.
Our whole conversation is about the "gift" tongues and what it really is. From scripture it is clear that it is supernaturally given no matter what language it is, whether earthly or heavenly doesn't matter to me.
So my point is, in a church service just like 1Cor 12-14 is talking about, can a message be given supernaturally in Chinese previously un-learned and then someone in the congregation that had not previously learned Chinese (whether Mexicans are present or not) could be given the interpretation supernaturally? And then the whole congregation would be edified and God glorified!
And of course, that supernatural would be from God.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Feb 28, 2009 22:33:04 GMT -5
Absolutely. That would be an example of the biblical gift tongues.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Mar 1, 2009 22:53:18 GMT -5
OK, great now we are making progress. Thanks for the answer, Joe. Now, does that same person that gave the message in Chinese have to understand what he said, or is it possible for him not to understand his own words?
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Mar 2, 2009 10:55:57 GMT -5
OK, great now we are making progress. Thanks for the answer, Joe. Now, does that same person that gave the message in Chinese have to understand what he said, or is it possible for him not to understand his own words? 1Cr 14:6 But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you unless I speak to you either by revelation, by knowledge, by prophesying, or by teaching? It wouldn't make sense to warn about the content of what is spoken if the person didn't know what they were speaking. If God was taking control of their tongues and speaking through them, no warnings or instructions would have been necessary. Interpretation is more than just translation, which is why so many people interpret the same translations of the Bible differently. Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Mar 2, 2009 14:12:31 GMT -5
So when you said this, you didn't mean the one speaking, just the ones in hearing distance?
1Co 14:13 Wherefore let him that speaketh in a tongue pray that he may interpret. 14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful. 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.
I think that 1Cor. 14:6 that you keep bringing up is part of the warning against just going around speaking in languages and no one around to interpret. If they knew what they were saying then they wouldn't need to pray for interpretation or need someone around that could interpret. You have to take in account verse 5 and then thru 12 and then the rest of the chapter. I can't think of any place in scripture that says the Apostles were understanding what they were saying and then could always speak that language afterward, can you?
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Mar 2, 2009 16:19:47 GMT -5
good one Steve:
Joe, If you could address this, I would appreciate it. It appears to me that the one speaking in tounges may not know what he is speaking either? If, as you seem to believe, the gift of tounges is speaking other languages intelligibly, then he would know what he is speaking, even if it is in another language that he knows.
But when he prays in the spirit, no one understands> I think it may mean that even the one praying does not understand, yet, his spirit is edified if he prays in the "spiritual" language.
Peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Mar 2, 2009 19:45:22 GMT -5
This is speaking of "my understanding" not my inability to understand. If I understand what I am saying and I don't convey that in terms that you can understand, my understanding is unfruitful.
When praying in an assembly, you should pray in a manner in which everyone can understand;
1Cr 14:16 Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say "Amen" at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?
..... including verse 16.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Mar 2, 2009 20:42:16 GMT -5
So are you saying that "my understanding" and it being "fruitful" is how someone understands me if i were the one giving the message in a different language?
Yes, verse 16 is part of the warning of giving messges in languages when no one's around that can interpret, just like i said. So, again why would it be important to pray for the ability to interpret or have someone present to interpret?
this is an earlier question from me:
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Mar 2, 2009 22:39:52 GMT -5
If you cannot convey a message with clarity, the message cannot bear fruit in the assembly. Praying for discernment and the ability to communicate the proper message in the proper manner is extremely important.
Speaking is a means of communication, sharing information. To share information, you have to posses information. If they could not understand what they were saying, how is it that they came to speak?
If God was speaking directly through them and they were unaware of what they were saying, warnings related to the exercising of this gift would not exist (how could men warn God about how and when He should speak).
The other option is that they were actually communicating in other languages. Warnings and guidelines make perfect sense if they were actually communicating their thoughts.
We do not have any passage of scripture saying that the Apostles lost this gift, nor do we have a passage saying they retained this gift. If the gift of tongues was the fulfilling of the prophecy, it could have ceased after the gospel went forth into the nations (Augustine's view). The Apostles could have retained this gift and it could have been lost as the first generation of Christians died off. The Spirit could certainly grant the gift of tongues today.
Blessings, Joe
|
|
|
Post by steve spidell on Mar 3, 2009 13:35:45 GMT -5
I know that the message must be clear and that is why we need to interpret a message in "tongues", that's not really my question. I'm either not stating my question right or you are not understanding the point. I won't ask a question, I will just state it this way; Ok, if Paul was to give a message in "tongues" at a church service and he understood what he was saying he wouldn't need to pray for the ability to interpret. And wouldn't need someone present to interpret, he could just speak in the language everyone present understood. But, if the gift of tongues is what you say it is, then i guess it probably died out with the Apostles. But then that wouldn't make sense because the gospel still needs to be taken to people who speak different languages and there are definite language barriers.
Here are some other translations of 1Cor. 14:14 that i think disagrees with your interpretation of "my understanding being unfruitful" as meaning making the message understandable.
14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful (ESV)
14For if I pray in an [unknown] tongue, my spirit [by the Holy Spirit within me] prays, but my mind is unproductive [it bears no fruit and helps nobody]. (AMP)
14 For if I pray in tongues, my spirit is praying, but I don’t understand what I am saying. (NLT)
14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. (NASV)
Anyway, if you have a response, great, but i probably won't have anymore, we just seem to go in circles. I'm sure it is my lack of clarity in writing. Thanks for discussing this with me, Joe, and of course everyone else that contributed.
|
|
|
Post by dmatic on Mar 3, 2009 16:05:03 GMT -5
Thanks to you Steve, too!
It still appears to me, and I will have to study this more....that when my "spirit" prays in a "tounge", my spirit is edified, but my "mind" is unfruitful....in that it doesn't yet produce fruit of the spirit. Unless, I "understand" the tounge I have been praying in.
If I understand, then my mind can produce the fruit of the spirit, whether that be love peace joy quietness gentleness or self-control....
I'll do some more research, Lord iwlling. Thanks for your thoughts joe!
peace, dmatic
|
|
|
Post by michaelmarkley on Mar 19, 2009 8:36:33 GMT -5
hello everyone ,think about this! John 16:8 (KJV) And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: the baptism of the holy Ghost will result in the person being used by the Holy Ghost to reprove the world of sin.. it can happen in different ways but the purpose is the end result. I see scripture saying that tongues in the book of acts was primarily addressing earthly languages , also I see Paul in Corinthians stating not everyone will speak in tongues.. Yet some people differentiate between tongues as a inside edification of church with interpretation ,some base that on being a earthly language others say unintelligent as in “no man will understand” implying it’s a unintelligent utterance , then others have said scripture points to a personal prayer language that is unintelligent that some how is a communication with God thru the Holy Spirit in a person. .such as they use Jude 1:20 (KJV) But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, In addressing this issue a person could ask “ if a person is speaking in a unintelligent language and the person speaking has no understanding himself then who is speaking to whom? Is God speaking to the man’s spirit? ( building up) or is God speaking to Himself? It seems to me after meeting many people over the years there are those who are filled with the Holy Spirit who don’t speak with tongues and others who do and also people who are speaking in tongues that are workers of iniquity! The later has been so obvious that one could question the creditability of the charismatic movement! I do see the gifts of the spirit as being for today! in Christ michael
|
|
|
Post by jonathandwhitehead on Mar 28, 2009 15:58:06 GMT -5
Don't know if you guys have covered this or not, but what do you all consider the meaning of being baptized in the Holy Ghost? And what are the tongues of the book of Acts? Are the gifts for today or did they stop with the Apostles? Hey Steve, I'm not sure if this topic is still of any interest to you seeing as you made this post during the beginning of February. I'm also not sure what conclusion you arrived at. However, I've studied this topic and I will attempt to share some of the truth's I've discovered. To briefly address your first question; “What do you all consider the meaning of being baptized in the Holy Ghost?” The purpose of Holy Spirit Baptism was to confirm the revelation of God which was being revealed during the 1st century. There are only two accounts of this Holy Spirit Baptism and each time the manifestation confirmed the words spoken by the Apostles. It's also important to note that Holy Spirit Baptism is an action directly performed by Jesus. (Matthew 3:11) Secondly you asked; “What are the tongues in the book of Acts?” The Miraculous Tongues in the New Testament are spoken languages that the recipients had not previously learned. You also asked: pete777 said: I agree that there is definitely false tongues, but when you say that tongues is only to communicate the gospel, are you saying that Cornelius (Acts 10) and the Ephesians in Acts 19 were somehow communicating the gospel to someone who couldn't understand there original language? Who were they preaching to? Could you help me with your interpretation of those scriptures? thanks The Apostle Peter wrote in Acts 11:15 that the Holy Spirit had fallen on the house of Cornelius just as He did on them in the beginning. So Cornelius was most definitely speaking a language. We also shouldn't elevate ourselves to a position that is mentally superior to the men in the New Testament because the Jews that were with Peter would have rejected this miraculous sign had Cornelius been uttering a non-existent language (just as anyone would today). The men in the New Testament were just as skeptical as we are today and these Jews knew that these men were speaking in a language that they had not previously been learned and were astonished. As for the men in Acts 19; These men did not receive the Holy Spirit Baptism but instead the laying on of the Apostle hands. (Which is distinct and important to note.) These men also miraculously spoke in another language that had not been previously learned. Who they preached to, I know not, but I'm sure the first person they encountered got an ear full. Your last question was; “Are the gifts for today or did they stop with the Apostles?” The correct answer is neither. The Miraculous gifts of the New Testament are not for today yet they did not cease with the Apostles. As we've noted earlier, the Apostles were able to pass Miraculous Gifts on through the laying on of the hands. So the Miraculous Gifts ceased when the last person who received the laying on of the Apostles hands perished from this earth. No one knows when this man died but he couldn't have lived past the 2nd century. I can tell that you probably have some more questions concerning 1 Cor 12-14 but instead of being presumptuous and addressing the typical Charismatic Pentecostal doctrines, I'll wait for your response. Take care and continue to search for the truth. -Jonathan Whitehead
|
|
|
Post by Rhema Seeker (Guy) on Mar 28, 2009 17:32:38 GMT -5
Jonathon;
I just have 2 questions I would like to ask you. Do you pray? And if so; WHY ?
|
|